The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

Tel-Aviv University
The Lester & Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities
The Shirley & Leslie Porter School of Cultural Studies
The Category P
Features, Projections, Interpretation
Thesis submitted for the degree “Doctor of Philosophy”
by
Irena Botwinik-Rotem
Submitted to the Senate of Tel-Aviv University
January, 2004
This work was carried out under the supervision of
Professor Julia Horvath
Doctor Tal Siloni
Acknowledgements
It has been a long, difficult, but most importantly, exciting and challenging
journey. Despite occasional despair, temporary hair loss, constant longing for (fiction)
books and films, I enjoyed every moment of it. Not only because I am completely and
totally in love with linguistics, that too (thank you, Noam Chomsky), but mainly
because I had the most wonderful companions.
Appropriately expressing my gratitude towards Julia Horvath and Tal Siloni, my
supervisors, is virtually impossible. They were always there for me, linguistically and
otherwise.
Julia Horvath’s profound apprehension of the linguistic theory was the basis of
our many fruitful, inspiring and challenging discussions, while her immeasurable
patience, generosity and understanding of the human nature saved me more then once
from indulging in self-pity.
Tal Siloni’s endless scientific enthusiasm and exquisite scientific taste, clarity of
mind and depth of thought were like a lighthouse in a storm; with her unique kindness
and compassion for human weaknesses, she saved my sanity.
To have these two great women and linguists as my guides in the thick forest of
prepositions has been sheer pleasure and enormous privilege.
I am greatly indebted to Martin Everaert, Idan Landau, and Tanya Reinhart.
I thank Martin Everaert for providing me with the stimulating and supporting
environment of the OTS-Utrecht Institute of Linguistics at the (almost) final stage of
my journey, and for his willingness to plunge into my ocean (more than once) and
come up with the most valuable comments, delicious food for thought, and topics for
further research – all these in the most attentive, gentle and humorous way (as if he
did not have other significant and time consuming things on his mind and desk at the
same time).
I am very grateful to Idan Landau, a dear friend and brilliant colleague, who was
always willing to listen, read and comment insightfully and constructively, from the
very beginning till the end.
Tanya Reinhart’s work and personality are a constant source of inspiration to
me. I thank her for reminding me that thinking is one’s primary duty and privilege, for
developing the Theta System, for her integrity and genuine care for students, for her
sincere humanity.
Henk van Riemsdijk’s sending me the only copy of his outstanding 1978 book
and his answering at length all my questions was a moving display of academic
collegiality.
Many thanks go to Yosef Grodzinsky and Naama Friedmann for taking interest
in my work and helping me with the neurolinguistic data, to the faculty members of
the Linguistics department at Tel Aviv university, Outi Bat-El for sending me to do
the tables, Ruth Berman for sharing with me her unbelievable knowledge in
linguistics and life-time experience (“Of course it (the thesis) will end, it’s just that
sometimes the person ends before it…”), Alex Grosu for commenting insightfully on
the final draft of the manuscript, and also Mira Ariel, Rachel Giora, Nirit Kadmon,
Chuck Kisseberth, Fred Landman and Paul Wexler for their support over the years,
and for making me feel as their equal.
There were many people, friends, fellow students, teachers, distinguished
linguists, who helped and inspired me throughout the years in many ways, I am
deeply grateful to all of them: Ravid Aisenman, Nurit Asayag, Smadar Azrieli, Alona
Belikova, Gabi Danon, Noa and Asaf Danziger, Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Robert Fiengo,
Marc-Ariel Friedemann, Nora Goldshlach, Maya Gordon, Martin Haider, Richard
Kayne, Tal Keidar, Jacqueline Lecarme, Marijana Marelj, Irit Meir, Aya Meltzer,
Dimitra Papangeli, Tova Rapoport, Oren Sade-Leicht, Ivy Sichel, Arhonto Terzi,
Martin Weidner, Ziva Weiler, Joost Zwarts, and all my students.
Special thanks are due to my mother, Rosa, for giving a personal example of
human strength, determination and generosity, to the Rotems for their unlimited
kindness and readiness to help, and to Ilana Cohen for her wisdom, for helping me
become the person that I am.
Last but not least, my beloved Amir Rotem and Sacha, to whom this work is
dedicated, thank you for your unconditional love, unprecedented patience, constant
support and complete understanding, hilarious sense of humor, and for making my life
meaningful.
Abstract
1. Introduction (chapter 1)
In the early stages of the development of linguistic theory, the category P
(preposition/postposition) was viewed as syntactically insignificant. Ps were analyzed
mostly as a kind of appendage to the NP (nominal phrase), rather than a syntactic
category on its own (Ross 1967, Fillmore 1968, Postal 1971).
Since Jackendoff (1973, 1977) P is standardly assumed to be an independent
syntactic head. The recognition of P as a syntactic category triggered various studies
which revealed that this category exhibits an unparalleled range of syntactic and
semantic diversity.
The set of roles PPs (prepositional phrases) play is substantially larger than the
set of roles played by any other type of phrase, lexical or functional. A PP can serve
as an argument: either as an internal argument of certain verbs or nouns (1a,b,c) or as
a subject (1d); a PP can also be a (across copula) predicate (2a) or a modifier, either
verbal or nominal (2b,c):
(1)
a. Bart put the book in the drawer.
b. I cannot rely on this drawer.
c. John’s belief in ghosts…/ the destruction of the city…
d. Under the table is a good hiding place.
(2)
a. The book is on the table.
b. Dan ate in the garden.
c. The book under the table is not mine.
Unlike any other functional or lexical head, the possible complements taken by
Ps vary from nominal (3a) to clausal (3b) (verbal, in Grimshaw’s (1991) extended
projection sense), and from argumental (e.g. DP) to predicative (e.g. AP) ((4a) vs.
(4b)):
(3)
a. dan higi’a axarey ha-mesiba
Dan arrived after the-party
b. dan higi’a axarey še-ha-ša’on cilcel
Dan arrived after that-the-clock rang
Dan arrived after the clock rang.
(4)
a. dan natan et ha-sefer le-rina
Dan gave Acc the-book to-Rina
Dan gave the book to Rina.
b. dan hafax le-yafe
Dan turned to-beautiful
Dan became beautiful.
The occurrence of PPs as across copula predicates (5a,b), similarly to other
predicative phrases such as AP (adjectival phrase) or NP (e.g. Dan is nice, Dan is a
teacher), may suggest that PPs are (theta-assigning) predicates, i.e. open expressions
to be closed by an argument or by a subject (Williams 1980, 1989, 1994 for the
former, Rothstein 1983, 2001 for the latter). However, this is not always the case
(5c,d,e):
(5)
a. The book is in the drawer.
b. The story is about Bart.
c. *The destruction is of the city.
d. *The (public’s) belief is in John.
e. *The gift is to Homer.
PPs do not behave uniformly with respect to binding (6). A pronoun coindexed
with the subject is grammatical only when embedded in a locative PP (6a,b). This
behavior can be taken to suggest that only a locative PP constitutes a binding domain
(cf. Hestvik 1991), as it is a (two-place) predicate. On the assumption that the PPs in
(6d,e) are not predicates (see (5d,e)), the contrast between (6a,b) and (6d,e) follows,
but the ungrammaticality of (6c) does not. The PP in (6c) is arguably a predicate (see
(5b)).
(6)
a. Dani put the book behind himi
b. Dani saw a snake behind himi
c. *Dani talked about himi
d. *Dani believed in himi
e. *Dani gave a prize to himi
Prepositional Case is standardly assumed to be inherent (cf. Chomsky 1986),
Case assigned to the argument of the Case-assigning predicate. This assumption is
reasonable for (6a,b), where the DP is the argument of a locative P, but not for (7),
where the DP introduced by P is clearly the argument of the corresponding verb or
noun (Chomsky 1981, Kayne 2001):
θAgent
(7)
a. Jean a fait manger la pomme à Marie.
John has made eat the apple to Mary
“John made Mary eat the apple.”
b. the destruction of the city…
θTheme
In addition to the clear cases which indicate that prepositional Case is not always
inherent (7), there are also the more complex and intriguing ones (8):
(8)
a. Dan relies on Mary.
b. Homer believes in nothing.
On the one hand, the nominal complement of P in (8) seems to be the argument
of the verb, rather than of P, suggesting that the Case assigned by the P in (8) is not
inherent, similar to (7). On the other hand, the verbs in (8) occur with PPs headed by
Ps such as on and in, rather than with the so-called ‘dummy’ of, which may be taken
to suggest otherwise. In other words, the thematic relation (or its absence) between P
and its complement in (8) is less clear than in (7). Consequently, the identity of Case
assigned in these constructions remains a mystery.
Given this, it is not surprising that in the past three decades the approaches to P
varied fundamentally. P was classified as uniformly lexical, forming a natural class
with As, Ns and Vs (cf. Jackendoff 1977); as a non-uniform ‘semi-lexical’ category
consisting of lexical and functional Ps (Emonds 1985, Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998);
and as uniformly functional, similarly to D or C (Grimshaw 1991, Baker 2003). These
approaches (discussed in chapter 1) contributed enormously to the understanding of P.
However, none of them succeeds to capture the whole picture.
In light of the above, the main goal of the study is to develop a coherent theory
of P, which will explain the relations between the various manifestations of P in
syntax, based on their properties.
The research presented in this study is conducted in the general framework of
the Principles and Parameters (P&P) theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986, Chomsky and
Lasnik 1993). Accordingly, I view lexical categories as feature complexes, and
assume the standard functional categories D, T and C. Within the P&P approach, I
adopt the Minimalist perspective (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), and hence do not have
recourse to the levels of representation D-structure and S-structure. The only levels of
representation I assume are the interfaces with the conceptual and articulatoryperceptual systems, LF and PF, respectively.
The study follows the “Active lexicon” argued for in Siloni (2002). The central
claim advanced in Siloni (2002) is that the lexicon is an operative component (contra
Marantz 1997, 2000; Borer 2003, who reduce it to a list of entries), as there are
derivational processes which must be assumed to apply prior to the formation of the
syntactic structure. More specifically, I adopt the Theta System framework developed
in Reinhart (1996, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002) as a model for the mental lexicon.
Accordingly, I consider the external theta-role as part of the information predicates
bear in the lexicon (as argued in Reinhart and Siloni 2003), rather than is inserted in
syntax by a verbal head such as little v (Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996, among others).
2. The theory of P (chapter 2)
I believe that a well-founded classification of P along the functional/lexical
dimension is the key to explaining the differences between the PPs. Based on a
critical reexamination of the lexical/functional distinction, juxtaposed with the
properties of P, I put forward the hypothesis in (9):
(9)
The main hypothesis
P is uniformly a functional category.
The realizations of P implicated by its functional classification are: (i) an
independent, phonetically full syntactic P-head; (ii) an affixal P, syntactically part of
the hosting head (it is affixed to); (iii) a phonetically null syntactic P-head consisting
of features.
Drawing on the variety of functions performed by each of the familiar functional
categories (e.g. C[-mod] introduces argumental clauses, C[+mod] heads predicative
(relative) clauses, Siloni 1997), I propose that P fulfills the following three roles
(functions) in syntax: PR(elation), PC(ase), and Ppred(icate). In this respect, it should be
emphasized that although the proposed roles of P are clearly distinguished, PR, PC,
and Ppred are subtypes of one functional category P, rather than three separate
syntactic categories.
The function of PR is to specify the relation of its complement to some other
entity (individual or event) (10). The particular semantic relation specified by PR (e.g.
location, cause, etc.) is determined by the meaning of the P-morpheme realizing PR:
(10)
a. Dan found a coin in the garden.
b. Dan left because Mary was tired.
In light of the functional classification of P, although PR is assumed to be
interpreted as a predicate-argument function, it does not involve theta-assignment.
PC has a Case checking function, licensed (selected) by the corresponding lexical
head. It is carried out by a subset of Ps, which are assumed to be associated in the
lexicon with an uninterpretable set of φ-features, enabling them to check the Case
feature of a DP (11). In a variety of languages, including Hebrew and English, the
subset of Ps which realize PC consists of phonologically-small prepositions (e.g. in,
at), referred to descriptively as small Ps:
(11)
a. Dan relies on his intuition.
b. Lisa believes in thinking.
Thus, as far as Case is concerned, there is a clear distinction between PR and PC.
While the function of PC, by definition, is to check structurally the Case feature of its
nominal complement, the following characterizes Case assignment by PR: (i) The
ability to assign Case is a property of individual P-morphemes realizing PR in a given
language (e.g. in English: under vs. because). (ii) The Case assigned by PR is inherent
(as defined in 2.1.3), its assignment does not involve feature checking.
Ppred, realized by particular small Ps (e.g. to), integrates one-place property
denoting constituents (e.g. NP, VP) into the syntactic structure (12):
(12)
a. ha-sefer kal
le-[NP havana]
the-book easy to-understanding
The book is easy to [VP understand].
b. dan hevi
et ha-oto li-[NP vdika]
Dan brought Acc the-car to-repairing
Dan brought the car to [VP repair].
The proposal is supported by the detailed case studies and analyses of various
constructions featuring P.
3. The support (chapters 3-5)
Chapter 3 is a study of the PC function. The empirical array of the chapter is
verbs whose internal argument is realized obligatorily as a PP (PP-verbs), rather than
a DP (e.g. rely on, depend on). In the very few existing analyses of the phenomenon
of PP-verbs, the function of Ps is claimed to be either Case-related (cf. Hestvik 1991),
or theta-related (Neeleman 1997). These proposals prove unsatisfactory as they
provide only partial explanations of the phenomenon, and do not answer the most
intriguing question, why the phenomenon exists in the first place.
Working primarily with a random sample of 70 Hebrew PP-verbs, and assuming
the framework of the Theta System (Reinhart 2000), the phenomenon of PP-verbs is
argued to follow from the hypothesis in (13):
(13)
The underspecification hypothesis
The internal theta-role of PP-verbs is underspecified.
In the Theta System theta-roles are viewed as feature clusters, rather than as
primitive, atomic notions. Two binary specified features are assumed to define thetaroles: [±c] (cause change) and [±m] (mental state involved). A fully specified thetarole is a feature cluster, all of whose features are specified (e.g. [+c+m], Agent). An
underspecified theta-role is a feature cluster unspecified with regard to one of its
features (e.g. [-c], Goal, the value of /m is not specified; [-m] Subject Matter, the
value of /c is unspecified).
Based on various familiar and new diagnostics, it is shown that the internal
theta-role of the discussed verbs is indeed underspecified, either [-c] (Goal) or [-m]
(Subject Matter), rather than any of the potential fully-specified ones (e.g. [-c-m]
(Theme), [-c+m] (Experiencer)). This supports the validity of the hypothesis in (13).
According to the Theta System, verbs whose internal theta-role is underspecified
are not associated with the [Acc] (Accusative Case) feature, and therefore cannot
check and delete the Case feature of their nominal argument. I propose that these
verbs lexically select for a semantically appropriate small P, which checks the
(structural) Case feature of their internal nominal argument. Thus, the occurrence of
small Ps (realizing PC) in the context of PP-verbs is motivated by the thematic
properties of the verb, but it has consequences regarding the Case of the nominal.
Based on evidence from Dutch and Hebrew, the small Ps in PP-verb
constructions are shown to be syntactic P-heads, rather than verbal particles or Casemarkings on a DP.
Ascribing the PC function to the prepositions occurring with PP-verbs derives the
absence of locative semantics in PP-verb constructions (14a), Accusative Case in
Russian (15a), and the binding facts attested in these constructions (16a):
(14)
a. Bart believes in love/*there.
Compare: b. Bart lives in Tel Aviv/there.
(15)
a. Sacha verit
v moyu te’ori-yu
Sacha believes in my
theory-Acc
Compare: b. Sacha živet v Tel Aviv-e
Sacha lives in Tel Aviv-Loc
(16)
a. lisai somexet *ale-hai/al acmai
Lisa believes on-her/on herself
Compare: b. lisai sama et ha-cova ale-hai/*al acmai
Lisa put Acc the-hat on-her/on herself
Given the thematic definition of PP-verbs (13), the cross-linguistic variation
attested in the group of PP-verbs in Hebrew, English and Russian is surprising and
demands an explanation.
It is observed that many [-c] assigning verbs in Russian occur without a
preposition, but their complement is Dative. Based on this, Dative Case, on a par with
PC, is assumed to be another device to check the Case of the nominal argument of an
Accusative-less verb.
On the assumption that Accusative and Dative are morphologically indistinct in
English, the [-c] argument of English verbs that occur without a preposition (e.g.
threaten, order, betray, all of these are PP-verbs in Hebrew) is argued to be realized
via Dative Case.
In Chapter 4 a systematic comparison between Locative, Directional and Dative
constructions leads to detailed analyses of the corresponding Ps.
Based on the binding phenomena (17) and across copula predication (18) the
Dative P is shown to be a Case-related element, a particular instance of PC.
(17)
a. Barti gave the prize to *himi/himselfi
b. Barti put the book near himi/??himselfi
(18)
a. *The prize is to Lisa.
b. The book is on the table.
Focusing on Hebrew, the Dative le- (‘to’) is argued to differ from the PC in PPverb constructions (chapter 3) in its syntactic manifestation. While the PC in PP-verb
constructions is a full, syntactically independent P-head, the Dative PC in Hebrew (le‘to’) is a D-affix, rather than a syntactic P-head on its own. Consequently, the Goal
argument in the Dative construction in Hebrew is realized as a (Dative) DP, rather
than as a PP.
The (semantically limited) distribution of the directional PP headed by P such as
le-/el (‘to’) (19a), and its behavior with respect to binding (19b) are taken to indicate
that the directional P in Hebrew is PR, but not a fully-fledged one.
(19)
a. bart *axal/rac la-gina
Bart ate/ran to+the-garden
b. be-ta’ut,
ha- pakidi salax et
lisa el-avi/??el-acmoi
By-mistake, the-clerk sent Acc Lisa to-him/himself
It is proposed that the external slot of the directional P triggers complex
predicate formation at LF with a path denoting predicate (i.e. a verb like send, or a
semantically appropriate noun like a trip (to London) or a train (to India), but not a
noun like a child (*to India)).
The comparison of the relevant binding facts in Hebrew with those in Russian
and English shows that the directional P in the latter is not a predicate (not PR), but
rather an instance of PC. This accounts for the fact that the complement of P in the
directional construction in Russian is Accusative.
Locative prepositions, unlike any other preposition, are shown to be independent
(two-place) predicates (PR). Based on their ability to modify individuals or events,
their lexical representation can include an e(vent) variable, similarly to adverbial
modifiers (Higginbotham 1985, Parsons 1990), and verbs (Davidson 1967).
Accordingly, Locative PPs can be Small Clause predicates (20) or modifiers (21).
(20)
a. Dan put [SC the book [PP Pdir [PP on the shelf]]]
b. The booki is [SC ti [PP on the shelf]]
(21)
a. Dan found the book in the garden.
b. The book on the table belongs to my aunt.
The observation that locative verbs such as put (20a) denote change of location
underlies the proposal that the structure of the locative SC in locative constructions
(20a) is different from its structure in existential (locative) constructions (20b). The
former is argued to include a phonetically null directional P above the locative PP.
Finally, the ability of Hebrew Locative PPs to combine with a phonetically null
T(ense) and form clausal modifiers (22), is shown to follow from their unique status
as independent predicates:
(22)
a. ha-sefer [CP še- [TP T [PP al ha-madaf]]]…
the-book
that-
Compare: b. *ha-sefer še-al
on the-shelf…
ha-xalal…
the-book that-about the-space…
In chapter 5 a close examination of Ppred is undertaken in object gap
constructions, especially in the Tough Construction (23) and the Object Purpose
Clause construction (24):
(23)
ha-sefer
kal li-kri’a
the book easy to-reading
The book is easy to read.
(24)
dan hevi
et
ha-oto le-tikun
Dan brought Acc the-car to-repairing
Dan brought the car to repair.
In these constructions in Hebrew, the P-morpheme le- (‘to’) introduces nominal
(rather than verbal) predicative phrases. Based on the properties of the sequence ‘lenominal’, le- in these constructions is analyzed as a lexical affix (i.e. affixal Ppred). Its
attachment to an event-denoting N results in a nominal element with an externalized
theta-role (i.e. an external argument slot, as posited for prepositions like about, under,
or adjectives like nice), projecting an NP (rather than a PP, or a DP). Extending the
proposal to English, I argue that to in English object gap constructions is a syntactic
Ppred (i.e. it is not T). On a par with le- in Hebrew, to externalizes the internal role of
its complement (which is verbal), creating a predicative phrase (PP) with an external
argument slot.
In the Object Purpose Clause construction, this predicative phrase (NP in
Hebrew, PP in English) is analyzed as a secondary predicate of the internal argument
of the main verb, along lines proposed by Rothstein (2000, 2003) for resultative
constructions (e.g. Dan wiped the table clean). In the Tough Construction, the NP/PP
and the tough adjective are argued to form a complex AP predicate. The complex
tough predicate, unlike the tough adjective itself, has an external argument slot (the
externalized theta-role of the N/V). Viewed this way, the analysis of the Tough
Construction explains and settles the long-standing controversy associated with the
thematic status of the subject position in the Tough Construction (cf. Chomsky 1981,
1986).
The outcome of the analysis is that the cluster of properties attested in object gap
constructions in English vs. Hebrew follows from the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ (Reinhart and Siloni 2003). More specifically, in Hebrew externalization
of the theta-role by Ppred takes place in the lexicon, in English the same happens in
syntax. This immediately explains why in English, but not in Hebrew, externalization
involves Op (null operator)-movement. Furthermore, it provides a promising direction
for deriving the fact, previously unaccounted for, that the constructions are nominal in
Hebrew but verbal in English.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………….……………………..
1
1.1 Previous approaches to P ……………………………………………………
2
1.1.1 The lexical approach ……………………………………………………
2
1.1.2 Departures from the lexical view ……………………………………….
7
1.1.2.1 The non-uniform approach ……………………………………...
7
1.1.2.2 The functional approach ………………………………………...
9
1.2 The goal and outline of the study ……………………………………………..
13
Chapter 2: The Theory of P …………………………………………………….
18
2.1 The classification of P ………………………………………………………...
19
2.1.1 The criteria ……………………………………………………………...
19
2.1.2 The functional properties of P …………………………………………..
22
2.1.3 Head-complement relation ……………………………………………..
26
2.1.4 Additional evidence …………………………………………………….
29
2.2 The role of P …………………………………………………………………..
30
2.2.1 The subtypes ……………………………………………………………
31
2.2.2 Realization of the subtypes ……………………………………………..
34
2.3 Lexical information …………………………………………………………...
37
2.3.1 Categorial specification …………………………………………………
37
2.3.2 Subcategorization ……………………………………………………….
39
Chapter 3: The Phenomenon of Obligatory PPs ………………………………
41
3.1 Previous approaches …………………………………………………………..
42
3.1.1 The verbal angle ………………………………………………………...
43
3.1.2 The prepositional angle …………………………………………………
44
3.1.3 PP-verbs in Hebrew …………………………………………………….
46
3.2 The proposal ………………………………………………………………….
49
3.2.1 Theta roles ………………………………………………………………
49
3.2.1.1 Thematic decomposition ………………………………………..
50
3.2.1.2 Semantic entailments …………………………………………...
51
3.2.1.3 The Theta System ………………………………………………
51
3.2.2 The theta-features (Reinhart 2000) …………………………………….
52
3.2.3 The mapping generalizations and lexicon marking …………………….
54
3.2.4 Why a PP? ………………………………………………………………
55
3.3 The function and syntactic status of P ………………………………………..
57
3.3.1 The P is PC ………………………………………………………………
57
3.3.2 PC is a syntactic head ……………………………………………………
60
3.3.3 The P-morpheme and the PP-verb ……………………………………...
67
3.3.3.1 The licensing of the PP at LF …………………………………...
69
3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction ………………………………………………………
70
3.4.1 The interpretation of theta-features ……………………………………..
70
3.4.2 Identification of [-m] and [-c] roles …………………………………….
72
3.4.3 PP-verbs assigning a [-c] role …………………………………………..
73
3.4.3.1 [-c] vs. [-c+m] …………………………………………………..
74
3.4.3.2 [-c] vs. [-c-m] …………………………………………………...
78
3.4.4 PP-verbs assigning a [-m] role ………………………………………….
80
3.4.4.1 Basic motivation ………………………………………………..
81
3.4.4.2 [-m] vs. [+c-m] ………………………………………………….
82
3.4.4.3 [-m] vs. [-c-m] …………………………………………………..
84
3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguistically: the issue of divergence ………………………..
88
3.5.1 Realization of verbal concepts ………………………………………….
88
3.5.2 Variation in the [-c] group ……………………………………………...
90
3.5.2.1 The [-c] cluster and Dative Case ………………………………..
91
3.5.2.2 [-c] in English …………………………………………………..
93
3.5.2.3 The obligatory occurrence of to ………………………………...
98
Appendix A: Residual issues ……………………………………………………..
100
Appendix B: Tables ………………………………………………………………
106
Chapter 4: Locative, Directional and Dative Ps ……………………………….
112
4.1 The binding distinction ……………………………………………………….
114
4.2 The Dative P-morpheme in Hebrew ………………………………………….
118
4.2.1 The Dative le- is PC ……………………………………………………..
119
4.2.2 No PP in the Hebrew Dative construction ……………………………...
123
4.3 The Directional P ……………………………………………………………..
130
4.3.1 The Dative-Directional distinction: A case study of send ……………...
131
4.3.2 The Locative-Directional distinction …………………………………...
134
4.3.3 Syntactic realization …………………………………………………….
136
4.3.3.1 Case in the Directional construction ……………………………
141
4.3.3.2 The unaccusative behavior of unergative verbs of motion ……..
143
4.3.4 On a certain distinction between Goal and Source Directional PPs ……
145
4.4 Locative Ps …………………………………………………………………....
148
4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Clause analysis ………………………………...
150
4.4.2 Projections of a Locative P ……………………………………………..
152
4.4.2.1 Locative Small Clauses …………………………………………
153
4.4.3 Modification by Locative PPs …………………………………………..
156
4.4.3.1 The structure of clausal PP-modifiers …………………………..
158
4.4.3.2 The Locative/non-Locative distinction …………………………
163
Appendix: On some differences between the Hebrew and English Dative Shift ...
167
Chapter 5: Ppred in Object Gap Constructions ………………………………...
172
5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………...
172
5.2 The properties of the nominal ………………………………………………...
174
5.2.1 Obligatory indefiniteness ……………………………………………….
175
5.2.2 The function of e-N …………………………………………………….
176
5.2.2.1 Op-movement …………………………………………………..
177
5.2.2.2 Engelhardt’s (1998) activity nominals ………………………….
179
5.2.3 The internal argument …………………………………………………..
180
5.2.4 The external argument ………………………………………………….
181
5.2.5 Adverbial modification …………………………………………………
184
5.3 The proposal …………………………………………………………………..
185
5.3.1 Externalization ………………………………………………………….
186
5.3.2 The function of le- (Ppred) ……………………………………………….
188
5.4 Externalization in English …………………………………………………….
193
5.4.1 to-VP is not clausal ……………………………………………………..
195
5.4.1.1 to is not T ……………………………………………………….
196
5.4.1.2 No subject position ……………………………………………..
198
5.4.2 The analysis …………………………………………………………….
200
5.4.2.1 The status and function of to ……………………………………
201
5.4.2.2 Motivating Op-movement ………………………………………
201
5.4.2.3 The specifier of the PP ………………………………………….
204
5.4.2.4 The consequences ………………………………………………
205
5.5 The role of leNP/PP in object gap constructions ……………………………...
208
5.5.1 The Tough Construction ………………………………………………..
208
5.5.1.1 The tough A …………………………………………………….
209
5.5.1.2 The subject position …………………………………………….
211
5.5.1.3 Complex predicate formation…………………………………...
213
5.5.1.4 Further evidence ………………………………………………...
215
5.5.1.5 The syntax of the complex AP predicate ……………………….
217
5.5.1.6 The interpretation of the saturated argument …………………...
219
5.5.2 The Object Purpose Clause ……………………………………………..
221
5.5.2.1 leNP/PP in the Object Purpose Clause …………………………..
221
5.5.2.2 The syntax of secondary predicates …………………………….
223
5.5.2.3 The semantics of object-oriented secondary predicates ………...
225
Appendix A: The Degree Construction (DegC) ………………………………….
227
Appendix B: The P-morpheme le- in ECM/Raising Small Clauses ……………...
229
References ………………………………………………………………………..
233
1
1. Introduction
In the early stages of the development of linguistic theory, the category P (i.e.
preposition/postposition) was viewed as syntactically insignificant. Ps were analyzed
mostly as a kind of appendix to the NP (nominal phrase), rather than a syntactic
category on its own (Ross 1967, Fillmore 1968, Postal 1971) (see Van Riemsdijk
1978 for a critical overview).1
Although the first serious recognition of Ps and PPs (prepositional phrases) can
be traced back to Klima (1965), it is only since Jackendoff (1973, 1977) that P is
standardly assumed to be an independent syntactic head.
With the recognition of P as a syntactic category, the following question arose:
What is the status of P in the lexicon? Is P a ‘lexical’ head, similar to N(oun), V(erb)
and A(djective), or a ‘functional’ one like D(eterminer) and C(omplementizer)? The
question proved to be difficult to answer.
Indeed, the classification of P along the lexical/functional dimension does not
present itself. As we will see directly, the discussed category exhibits an unparalleled
degree of semantic and syntactic diversity, complicating the task at hand. In the past
three decades the classification of P ranged from ‘lexical’ through ‘semi-lexical’ to
‘functional’ (cf. Jackendoff 1977, Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998, Grimshaw 1991,
respectively). However, despite its various classifications, the discussed category
continues to present unique problems for the linguistic theory.
In the first part of the chapter I will review and discuss briefly the major
approaches to P in the past thirty years, highlighting their motivation and contribution,
and pointing out the problems left unresolved. The second part is dedicated to the
goal, the main claims and the outline of the present study. The theoretical background
assumed throughout the study concludes the chapter.
1
Ps are viewed as Case-markings attached to NPs in Fillmore (1968), and as features on NPs in Postal
(1971). In the generative semantics approach Ps were equated with verbs.
2
1.1 Previous approaches to P
1.1.1 The lexical approach
As already mentioned, since Jackendoff (1973, 1977) P is no longer ignored.
Motivated by the variety of complements taken by Ps (1) and corroborated by the
availability of P-specific adverbials analyzed as the specifiers of PPs (2), P is argued
to be a lexical head, similarly to N, V, A, which projects a phrasal category of its
own, namely a PP, according to the X-bar schema.
(1)
a. dan higi’a axarey [DP ha-mesiba]
“Dan arrived after the party.”
b. dan higi’a axarey [CP še ha-ša’on cilcel]
Dan arrived after
that the-clock rang
“Dan arrived after the clock rang.”
c. ha-kadur hitgalgel el [PP mitaxat la-mita]
the-ball rolled
to
under to+the-bed
“The ball rolled under the bed.”
(2)
Lisa (*right/straight) found the candy (right/straight) in her pocket.
The categorial features [±V, ±N], proposed originally in Chomsky (1970) for the
three major lexical categories N, V, and A, were extended later (Chomsky 1981) to
define members of the category P as [-V -N], establishing the theoretical status of P as
the fourth lexical category (in what follows I will refer to this approach as ‘the lexical
approach to P’).2 The categorial specification assumed for P (especially the feature
[-N] which P shares with V) was believed to capture cross-categorial generalizations
such as the ability to assign Case, typical of Ps and Vs. One of the significant
consequences of the classification of P as lexical is that it takes prepositions to be
predicates, namely potential theta-assigners.
2
Jackendoff (1977: 31-32) proposes a somewhat different breakdown into binary specified features,
namely [±subject, ±object]. In his classification P is [-subject +object]. Additional approaches to
feature specification are found in Stowell (1981), Muysken and Van Riemsdijk (1986), Reuland
(1986), Abney (1987), Dechaine (1993), Zwarts (1997). (See Baker (2003) for a critical discussion of
these feature systems, including the standard one mentioned in the main text).
3
Note that at this stage of the theory, the X-bar schema was not yet extended to
the grammatical formatives, referred to later as functional categories (i.e. I(nflection)
and C). Consequently, in the absence of any other kind of syntactic heads except the
lexical ones, it was reasonable to consider P a lexical head, given that its phrase
structure possibilities are very similar to those of N, V and A.3
Putting aside for now the question whether the classification of P as a (major)
lexical category is adequate, the contribution of Jackendoff’s proposal is enormous.
The recognition of P as a syntactic head stimulated and enabled researchers to study
PPs with respect to various modules of the theory of grammar. Interestingly, though,
the picture which emerges from these studies is not neat. In fact, the only clear thing
seems to be that P is difficult to characterize. The unusual diversity of P is attested in
several dimensions.
(i) The set of roles PPs play is substantially larger than the set of roles played
by any other type of phrase (e.g. VPs, APs). A PP can serve as an argument: either as
an internal argument of certain verbs or nouns (3a,b,c) or as a subject (3d); a PP can
also be an across copula predicate (4a) or a modifier, either verbal or nominal (4b,c):
(3)
a. Bart put the book in the drawer.
b. I cannot rely on this drawer.
c. John’s belief in ghosts…/the destruction of the city…
d. Under the table is a good hiding place.
(4)
a. The book is on the table.
b. Dan found the book in the drawer.
c. The book under the table is not mine.
(ii) The possible complements taken by Ps vary from nominal to clausal (verbal,
in Grimshaw’s (1991) extended projection sense) ((1a,b) repeated as (5a,b),
respectively), and from argumental (e.g. DP) to predicative (e.g. NP, AP) (6):
3
The term ‘lexical’ is (at least) two-ways ambiguous: (i) It is used literally, referring to entities in the
lexicon, regardless of their classification (e.g. that, will, about, cat, love, eat, nice); (ii) The term
‘lexical’ is used to refer to the major word-classes such as N, V and A. The theta-assigning potential
and the feature specification assumed for P leave no doubt that the classification of P as ‘lexical’ was
intended in its theoretical sense, namely as a major lexical category.
4
(5)
a. dan higi’a axarey ha-mesiba
“Dan arrived after the party.”
b. dan higi’a axarey še ha-ša’on cilcel
Dan arrived after that the-clock rang
“Dan arrived after the clock rang.”
(6)
a. dan natan et
ha-sefer le-rina
Dan gave Acc the-book to-Rina
“Dan gave the book to Rina.”
b. dan hafax le-more/yafe
Dan turned to-teacher/beautiful
“Dan became a teacher/beautiful.”
(iii) As already mentioned, if Ps are classified as lexical heads, it means that PPs
are (theta-assigning) predicates, i.e. open expressions to be saturated by an argument
or by a subject (Williams 1980, 1989, 1994 for the former, Rothstein 1983, 2001 for
the latter). Consequently, they are expected to occur freely as across copula
predicates, similarly to other predicative phrases such as AP or NP (e.g. Dan is nice,
Dan is a teacher). However, they behave non-uniformly in this respect. Some PPs
fulfill the expectation (7a,b), whereas other fail to do so (7c,d,e):
(7)
a. The book is in the drawer.
b. The story is about Bart.
c. *The destruction is of the city.
d. *The (public’s) belief is in John.
e. *The gift is to Homer.
In order to account for the confusing paradigm in (7) some Ps, referred to rather
informally as semantically contentful, were assumed to be two-place predicates,
assigning an internal and an external theta-roles (e.g. (7a,b)). Others were proposed to
be ‘grammaticalized’ in various degrees, namely: (i) having ‘less’ semantic content
(arguably, (7d,e)), and therefore assigning at most one (internal) theta-role, or (ii)
lacking any semantic content and therefore not theta-assigners (7c). As is already
clear from the examples in (7), there is a potential problem with this assumption. The
5
same P (in) seems to be both semantically contentful (functioning as a two-place
predicate) and ‘grammaticalized’ ((7a) vs. (7d)). The question which was not
addressed at this stage is whether such a preposition should be still considered as
lexical.
(iv) PPs do not behave uniformly with respect to binding (8). A pronoun
coindexed with the subject is grammatical when embedded in a locative PP (8a,b), but
not in other PPs (8c,d,e). This behavior was taken to suggest that only a locative PP
constitutes a binding domain (cf. Hestvik 1991), as it is a (two-place) predicate. Based
on (7), this can account for the ungrammaticality of (8c,e), but it leaves (8d)
unaccounted for. In the former the PPs are arguably not predicates (see (7d,e)), which
is not the case in the latter (see (7b)).4
(8)
a. Dani put the book behind himi
b. Dani saw a snake behind himi
c. *Dani believed in himi
d. *Dani talked about himi
e. *Dani gave a prize to himi
(v) Under the lexical approach, there are two assumptions which characterize
Case-assignment by prepositions. First, Ps are assumed to be canonical Caseassigners, similarly to Vs (reflected by the shared [-N] feature). Second, prepositional
Case is identified as inherent, Case assigned necessarily to the theta-argument of the
assigning P-head, rather than as structural, assigned independently of theta-marking.
However, both assumptions appear to be imprecise.
In various languages, including English and Hebrew, there are Ps which are not
able to assign Case (9):5
(9)
4
a. Dan left because *(of) Mary.
English
The observed split between the locative PPs and those sometimes referred to as ‘governed’ PPs (e.g.
Dan relied on Mary) emerges in psycholinguistic studies as well (cf. Friederici 1982, Grodzinsky
1988).
5
See Dimitriadis 1999, Terzi 2001, for the inability of some locative Ps in Modern Greek to license
bare Genitive DPs.
6
b. misaviv *(le)-ec
around
Hebrew
(to)-tree
“around a tree”
As for the second assumption, there are constructions where the complement of
a preposition is clearly not its argument, but rather the argument of another head (e.g.
V, N). This is illustrated by the causative construction in French (10a) (Kayne 2001),
and by the deverbal nominal in English (10b) (Chomsky 1981) (see also Kayne 1984).
Based on (10), the assumption that prepositional Case is inherent cannot be
maintained in its generality, as not every instance of prepositional Case is thetarelated.
θAgent
(10)
a. Jean a fait manger la pomme à Marie.
John has made eat the apple to Mary
“John made Mary eat the apple.”
b. the destruction of the city…
θTheme
In addition to the clear cases which indicate that prepositional Case is not always
inherent (10), there are also the more complex and intriguing ones (11):
(11)
a. Dan relies on Mary.
b. Homer believes in nothing.
On the one hand, the nominal complement of P in (11) seems to be the argument
of the corresponding verb, rather than of P, suggesting that the Case assigned by the P
in (11) is not inherent, similarly to (10). On the other hand, the verbs in (11) occur
with PPs headed by Ps such as on and in, rather than with the so-called ‘dummy’ of,
which may be taken to suggest otherwise. In other words, the thematic relation (or its
absence) between P and its complement in (11) is less clear than in (10).
Consequently, the identity of the Case assigned in these constructions remains a
mystery.
7
The classification of P as a major lexical category is far from being
uncontroversial. One obvious objection is the fact that P, as opposed to N, V or A, is a
small, closed category, namely it has relatively few members (tens, rather than
hundreds), and it does not admit easily any new ones (cf. Emonds 1985). Thus, given
the above (i.e. (i)-(v)) and the unproductive and small-class nature of P, it seems
plausible that the failure of the (uniform) lexical approach to result in a coherent
picture is due primarily to the classification of P as lexical.
With the extension of the X-bar theory to the functional categories, such as
T(ense) or I(nflection) projecting a TP/IP, or C projecting a CP (Chomsky 1986),
there arose a real opportunity to reevaluate the categorial classification of P.6
1.1.2 Departures from the lexical view
Emonds (1985), Van Riemsdijk (1990, 1998), Grimshaw (1991) (and most
recently Baker 2003) are the most prominent representatives of what may be called
‘the non-lexical approaches to P’. All of them share the assumption that P is not a
major lexical category. The assumption is based primarily on the observation that P,
unlike N, V or A, is a small, closed class category. Apart from the shared assumption,
the aforementioned approaches are quite distinct. While Grimshaw (1991) and Baker
(2003) treat P as uniformly functional, the approach to P in Emonds (1985) and Van
Riemsdijk (1990, 1998) is non-uniform.7 In what follows I will examine to what
extent these approaches contribute to the clarification of the complex picture
presented by P.
1.1.2.1 The non-uniform approach: Emonds (1985) and Van Riemsdijk (1990,
1998) view P as a ‘grammatical’ category, labeled ‘semi-lexical’ in Van Riemsdijk
1998. Despite the different terminology, it can be argued that under these approaches
P is still considered lexical to some extent, since (some) members of P are assumed to
be theta-assigners. That the lexical view of P is not entirely abandoned is also
suggested by the categorial specification of P as [-N-V] in Van Riemsdijk’s proposal.8
6
Throughout the study I refer to the clausal functional head as T, rather than I/T.
See also Radford (1997), Zwarts (1997), Koopman (2000).
8
The specification of P as [-N-V] plays an important role in Van Riemsdijk’s proposal. It is argued to
underlie the ability of P to introduce a large variety of complements. In addition to its categorial feature
specification [-N-V], P is specified as [-F(unctional) +G(rammatical)]. (For more details see Van
Riemsdijk 1998).
7
8
These approaches do depart from the uniform lexical view, as they introduce an
explicit assumption that among Ps there can also be functional, non-theta-assigning Ps
(Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998). The proposed division of Ps seems to be motivated
mainly by semantic contentfulness of individual Ps (Ps analyzed as functional by Van
Riemsdijk, are referred to explicitly as ‘not contentful’ in Emonds 1985).
Given the split between ‘semi-lexical’ (theta-assigning) and functional (nontheta-assigning) Ps, the ability of only a subset of Ps (i.e. the ‘semi-lexical’ Ps) to
occur as predicates (7) is expected. It is also not surprising that prepositional Case is
not always inherent (theta-related). Only the theta-assigning ‘semi-lexical’ Ps can be
inherent Case-assigners, the Case assigned by functional Ps cannot be inherent as the
latter are not theta-assigners (10).
The lexical/functional division seems to be further supported by the distribution
of PPs. For instance, since a ‘semi-lexical’ P is viewed as a theta-assigner, namely a
predicate, the lexical projection of such a P (PP), similarly to the lexical projection of
a V (VP) or an N (NP), is predicted not to receive a theta-role (cf. Van Riemsdijk
1998).9 This prediction is born out in examples such as (12), where the temporal and
locative PPs are adjuncts, standardly assumed not to be assigned a theta-role.
(12)
a. Before the war, life was much better. ((57) in Van Riemsdijk 1998)
b. Bart found a coin in the garden.
Even the problematic construction in (11), repeated in (13), seems to receive a
natural account. On the assumption that the preposition in in (13) is a functional nontheta-assigning head, the PP headed by in in (13) is not a predicate, but rather a
functional extension of its DP complement. Consequently, this PP can be assigned a
theta-role by the verb (note that some additional mechanism which ensures that the
theta-role assigned to the PP is transmitted to the embedded DP is still needed).
(13)
9
Homer believed in his intuition.
The addition of the term ‘lexical’ (projection) is meant to distinguish between the predicative phrases
projected by theta-assigning heads such as V and N (i.e. VP and NP), and the corresponding
argumental ones (i.e. CP and DP, respectively). Only the latter are standardly assumed to be assigned a
theta-role.
9
The problematic case for the non-uniform approaches is the locative
construction (14) (this is acknowledged in Van Riemsdijk 1998).
(14)
Lisa put the book in the drawer.
The locative PP in this construction is assumed to be an argument of the locative
verb, rather than an adjunct (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998, among others). Consequently,
the PP in (14) has to receive a theta-role from the verb. This, however, creates a
theory-internal paradox: Only PPs headed by a functional P can receive a theta-role.
However, the P in (14) is a locative, semantically contentful P, which should be
classified as ‘semi-lexical’, rather than as functional, and project a predicative PP,
which is not assigned a theta-role.
That the locative P in (14) has the same ‘semi-lexical’ status assumed for the
locative P in (12) is supported by the binding paradigm (8a,b), which shows that
locative PPs, regardless of their relation to the verb (i.e. argument vs. adjunct) behave
uniformly.
To conclude, the non-uniform approach makes an important step forward in not
viewing P as a major lexical category, and in allowing at least some of its members to
be functional. Furthermore, since diversity seems to be strongly associated with P in
several dimensions, making an explicit assumption about it (in one of the
dimensions), instead of ignoring it, is methodologically the right move. The specific
dimension chosen in this approach (i.e. the lexical/functional dimension) is costly, as
it results in a non-uniform theory of P which despite its non-uniformity is not
sufficient to account for the array of challenging phenomena exhibited by P. Finally,
if the lexical/functional distinction is a primitive option for individual Ps, then the
more interesting question of why some Ps can be both ‘semi-lexical’ and functional
(e.g. in, on), whereas others cannot (e.g. under, above), cannot be addressed, in
principle.
In light of the above, let us turn to examine the approach that takes P to be a
uniformly functional head on a par with T, C or D.
1.1.2.2 The functional approach: Grimshaw (1991) develops a theory of
Extended Projection, the goal of which is to derive the observation that functional
categories such as T, C, D tend to appear with fixed complements, whereas lexical
10
heads such as N, V, A do not.10 Under her approach a functional head functions as an
extension of the appropriate lexical head projection (e.g. [DP-D’-D-NP-N’-N], [IP-I’I-VP-V’-V]). It is proposed that P extends the nominal projection (i.e. PP-P’-PDP…), similarly to C which is proposed to extend the verbal one. Since the principle
which restricts the formation of an extended projection is that all heads in the
extended projection are categorially identical, the categorial features of P in
Grimshaw’s theory are that of N, [+N-V], rather than the [-N-V] cluster assumed in
previous versions of the theory. The classification of P as a functional head (in the
extended nominal projection) entails that P is not a theta-assigner.11
The first apparent obstacle to Grimshaw’s uniform and restrictive theory is
presented by semantically contentful Ps such as after, which can introduce clausal
categories, arguably CPs. Since P is assumed to be part of the nominal extended
projection, it cannot form an extended projection with a CP, which is verbal (i.e. part
of the extended verbal projection). Since Ps are claimed to be functional, they are not
supposed to either c(ategorially)- or s(emantically)-select their complement. To solve
this problem Grimshaw proposes a certain relaxation regarding P. As opposed to the
other functional heads, which do not s- or c-select, since their participation in the
extended projection is guided by the principles of projection, semantically contentful
Ps (referred to as ‘semantic’) are suggested to be allowed to s-select their
complement. In this respect, note that although Grimshaw does not deny that some Ps
are semantically contentful, she assumes that this does not necessarily preclude their
being a functional category syntactically (Grimshaw 1991:7).
However, even with the relaxation mentioned above, the wide distribution of
PPs presents some prominent problems for Grimshaw’s theory. Recall that Ps can
introduce not only argumental constituents, namely CPs and DPs, but also various
predicative ones ((6b) repeated as (15b) and (15a,c)). This is virtually impossible
under Grimshaw’s approach, as it is the basic premise of her theory that complements
of the functional categories are fixed (note that the Ps in (15) are not semantically
contentful, therefore s-selection cannot play any role here).
10
The same observation is made independently in Van Riemsdijk (1990).
See also Webelhuth (1992), where the claim that Ps function as affixes is taken to entail that P is not
a theta-assigner.
11
11
(15)
a. hu hafax mi-[AP yafe]
le-[AP mexo’ar]
(adapted from Emonds 1985)
he turned from-beautiful to-ugly
b. ha-sefer
the-book
kaše
li-[NP kri’a] 12
difficult to-reading
“The book is difficult to read.”
c. dan nika
et
ha-xeder bi-[NP mhirut]
Dan cleaned Acc the-room in-quickness
“Dan cleaned the room quickly.”
Another problem for Grimshaw’s theory is presented by (temporal and locative)
adjunct PPs (12), repeated in (16a,b) (noted in Van Riemsdijk 1998). PPs are assumed
to be the functional extension of their argumental DP complement. Consequently, PPs
are predicted to be assigned a theta-role. However, an adjunct, by assumption, is a
constituent not assigned a theta-role. In the same vein, the occurrence of PPs as
(across copula) predicates (16c) does not follow in any trivial way from Grimshaw’s
proposal.
(16)
a. Before the war, life was much better.
b. Bart found a coin in the garden.
c. The book is in the drawer.
Based on the above, it may seem that a functional approach to P is completely
untenable, or at least as problematic as the lexical one. However, it is important to
note that the major problem for Grimshaw’s theory regarding P is caused by an
arguably imprecise observation that functional categories have unique complements.
At the time when Grimshaw’s proposal was designed, this observation seemed to
many researchers as a linguistic fact, namely a universal property of human language,
to be accounted for by linguistic theory. Note, however, that if this is not so, the
problem raised by the distribution of Ps in (15), immediately disappears, and the
functional approach to P regains its appeal.13
12
le- (‘to’) in (15b) and be- (‘in’) in (15c) become li- and bi-, respectively, as they are followed by a
consonantal cluster which has to be broken (i.e. the PP in (15c) is pronounced bim-hirut, rather than bemhirut). This phonological rule is hardly obeyed in colloquial Hebrew.
13
Studies and consequent analyses of various constructions conducted in the past decade indicate that
the complements of functional heads such as C and D do differ substantially. However, it is not the
12
To summarize, as it stands, Grimshaw’s functional approach to P proves
unsatisfactory in several respects. The weak aspects of the proposal, however, do not
bear on its major theoretical contribution to view P as a functional syntactic head,
despite the (‘semantic’) diversity among its members.
Indeed, in the past decade the functional view of P has gained independent
support from phonological and psycholinguistic studies (cf. Selkirk 1995 for the
former, Froud 2001 for the latter). P is argued to be functional also in the most recent
syntactic study (Baker 2003, Appendix). Putting aside the details of Baker’s approach
to P, it is worth pointing out that the line of argumentation and the supporting
evidence which leads to the classification of P as functional in Baker (2003) differs
substantially from Grimshaw (1991). Many of Baker’s arguments are based on crosslinguistic empirical evidence, rather than on theory-internal assumptions. Thus,
Baker’s functional classification of P can be taken (at least) as an additional support
for the functional view of P.14
To conclude this section: The lexical approach revealed the outstandingly wide
array of phenomena exhibited by P, but was unable to account for them. The nonuniform approach introduced the option to classify (some) Ps as functional, paving the
way for the uniform functional approach. Although the latter has not been fully
successful, it is worth pursuing; the classification of P as functional seems to be the
key to understanding the wide range of roles performed by Ps and PPs.
The approaches to P reviewed above, undoubtedly, contributed enormously to
our understanding of this category. However, none of them succeeds in capturing the
whole picture. This is the challenge of the present study. In what follows I will outline
the goal, the major hypotheses and the structure of the study, concluding with a brief
statement regarding the theoretical framework within which it is conducted.
categorial identity of the complement per se which should be taken to reflect the difference. Rather, the
difference stems from a more general property of the complement (e.g. association with tense) (Siloni
1997 and references cited therein). (For a more detailed discussion of this point see chapter 2).
14
A coherent evaluation of Baker’s approach to P at this stage would be premature. The major goal of
Baker (2003) is to define the lexical categories N, V and A in a more explanatory way than they were
defined by the previous feature systems mentioned in fn. 2 (for details see Baker (2003)). A
comprehensive theory of P is not the main goal of Baker (2003). The approach to P he sketches in the
Appendix is, however, a very interesting and highly valuable bonus.
13
1.2 The goal and outline of the study
The primary goal of the research presented in this study is to shed more light on
the status of the category P and develop a coherent theory explaining the various
manifestations of P in syntax on the basis of their properties.
A critical reexamination of the lexical/functional distinction, juxtaposed with the
properties of P, leads to the main hypothesis of the study (17):
(17)
The main hypothesis
The category P is uniformly functional.
Given the major hypothesis, the following claims are advanced:
a. P-morphemes are meaningful. Some of them, labeled descriptively as small,
are assumed, in addition, to be associated with formal φ-features (Kayne 2001),
or marked for a grammatical function (chapter 2).
b. The realizations of P that follow from its functional classification are: (i) an
independent, phonetically full syntactic P-head; (ii) an affixal P, syntactically
part of the hosting head (it is affixed to); (iii) a phonetically null syntactic Phead consisting of features.
c. Drawing on the variety of functions performed by each of the familiar
functional categories (e.g. C[-mod] introduces argumental clauses, C[+mod] heads
predicative (relative) clauses, Siloni 1997), I propose that P fulfills
the
following three roles (i.e. functions) in syntax: PC(ase), PR(elation), and Ppred(icate)
(chapter 2).
d. The proposed roles of P are clearly distinguished. The function of PR is to
specify the relation of its complement to some other entity (individual or event).
The particular semantic relation specified by PR (e.g. locative, cause, etc.) is
determined by the meaning of the P-morpheme realizing PR. Although PR is
interpreted as a predicate-argument function, it does not involve thetaassignment (chapters 2, 4). PC has a Case checking function, licensed (selected)
14
by the corresponding lexical head. It is carried out by small Ps only (e.g. in, at),
as only these are associated with an uninterpretable set of φ-features, which
enables them to check the Case feature of a DP (chapters 2, 3).15 Ppred, realized
by particular small Ps (e.g. to), integrates property denoting constituents (e.g.
NP, VP) into the syntactic structure (chapters 2, 5).
Support for the proposal is drawn from three detailed case studies that are
presented in chapters 3-5. The apparent differences exhibited by PPs are shown to
follow from the specific lexical representations of the Ps themselves and from their
interaction with the corresponding lexical heads.
Chapter 3 is a study of the PC function. The empirical array of the chapter is
verbs whose internal argument is realized obligatorily as a PP (PP-verbs, henceforth),
rather than a DP (e.g. rely on, depend on). In the very few existing analyses of the
phenomenon of PP-verbs, the function of P is claimed to be either Case-related (cf.
Hestvik 1991), or theta-related (Neeleman 1997). These proposals prove
unsatisfactory as they provide only partial explanations of the phenomenon, and do
not answer the most intriguing question, namely why the phenomenon exists in the
first place. Assuming the framework of The Theta System (Reinhart 2000, 2001,
2002), I argue that PP-verbs are two-place verbs with an underspecified internal thetarole. Such verbs do not have the syntactic ability to check and delete the Case feature
of their nominal argument. Therefore they lexically select for a semantically
appropriate small P, which checks the Case feature of their internal nominal
argument. Viewed this way, the occurrence of small Ps in the context of PP-verbs is
thematically motivated, but their function is purely syntactic, to check the Case of the
nominal.
The proposed analysis not only defines the group of PP-verbs, but also provides
an account of the cross-linguistic variation they show, based on Hebrew, English and
Russian.
Chapter 4 offers a systematic comparison between Locative, Directional and
Dative constructions and a detailed analysis of the corresponding Ps.
The Dative P is shown to be a particular case of PC. Focusing on Hebrew, I
argue that the Dative PC differs from the PC in PP-verb constructions (chapter 3) in its
15
As will be explained in chapter 2, a DP complement of PR carries inherent Case (which will be
redefined); inherent Case does not involve feature checking.
15
syntactic manifestation: While the PC in PP-verb constructions is a full, syntactically
independent P-head, the Dative PC in Hebrew (le- ‘to’) is an affix (on D), rather than a
syntactic P-head on its own. Namely, the Goal argument in the Dative construction in
Hebrew is realized as a (Dative) DP, rather than as a PP.
Locative Ps, which are probably the most familiar instantiation of PR, function as
(two-place) predicates (predicated of individuals or events). Accordingly, I argue that
even in the locative construction headed by locative verbs such as put, where the
locative PP is often assumed to be the argument of the verb (cf. Marantz 1984), the PP
is a predicate. More precisely, the locative PP in this construction is a predicate of a
Small Clause (SC), the subject of which is the direct object of the (locative) verb.
The (semantically limited) distribution of the directional PPs headed by P such
as le-/el (‘to’), and their behavior with respect to binding are taken to indicate that the
directional P in Hebrew is PR, but not a fully-fledged one. Thus, unlike PR (e.g.
locative Ps), the external slot of this P is proposed to be closed at LF upon complex
predicate formation with the selecting head (i.e. a path denoting verb such as send, or
a semantically appropriate noun like a trip (to London) or a train (to India), but not a
noun like a child (*to India)). Comparing the Hebrew binding facts with those
attested in English and Russian, it is concluded that the Directional P in the latter is
not PR but rather an instance of PC. This accounts for the fact that the complement of
P in the Directional construction in Russian is Accusative.
In chapter 5 a close examination of Ppred is undertaken in object gap
constructions, especially in the Tough Construction and the Object Purpose Clause
construction (e.g. Hebrew: ha-sefer kal li-kri’a, ‘The book is easy to read’; dan hevi et
ha-oto le-tikun, ‘Dan brought the car to repair’). In these constructions in Hebrew, the
preposition le- (‘to’) introduces nominal (rather than verbal) predicative phrases.
Based on the properties of the sequence ‘le-nominal’, le- in these constructions is
analyzed as a lexical prepositional affix (i.e. affixal Ppred). Its attachment to an eventdenoting N results in a nominal element with an externalized theta-role (i.e. an
external argument slot, as posited for adjectives such as nice or Ps such as about,
under), projecting an NP (rather than a PP, or a DP). Extending the proposal to
English, I argue that to in English object gap constructions is a syntactic Ppred (i.e. it is
not T). On a par with le- in Hebrew, to externalizes the internal role of its complement
(which is verbal), creating a predicative phrase (PP) with an external slot.
16
In the Object Purpose Clause construction, this predicative phrase (NP in
Hebrew, PP in English) is analyzed as a secondary predicate of the internal argument
of the main verb, along lines proposed by Rothstein (2000, 2003) for resultative
constructions (e.g. Dan wiped the table clean). In the Tough Construction, the NP/PP
and the tough adjective are argued to form a complex AP predicate. The complex
tough predicate, unlike the tough adjective itself, has an external argument slot (the
externalized theta-role of the N/V). Viewed this way, the proposed analysis of the
Tough Construction explains and settles the long-standing controversy associated with
the thematic status of the subject position in the Tough Construction (cf. Chomsky
1981, 1986).
The outcome of the analysis is that the cluster of properties attested in object gap
constructions in English vs. Hebrew follows from the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ (Siloni 2002). More specifically, in Hebrew externalization of the thetarole by Ppred takes place in the lexicon, in English the same happens in syntax. This
immediately explains why in English, but not in Hebrew, externalization involves Op
(null operator)-movement. Even more importantly, it provides a promising direction
to derive the fact, previously unaccounted for, that the constructions are nominal in
Hebrew but verbal in English.
Before I conclude, a word on the theoretical background assumed throughout the
study is in order. I postpone the presentation and discussion of additional, more
specific, theoretical notions until they become relevant.
The research presented in this study is conducted in the general framework of
the Principles and Parameters (P&P henceforth) approach (Chomsky 1981, 1986,
Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). I view lexical categories as feature complexes, and
assume the standard functional categories D, T and C. Within the P&P approach, I
assume the Minimalist perspective (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), and hence do not
have recourse to the levels of representation D-structure and S-structure. The only
levels of representation I assume are the interfaces with the conceptual and
articulatory-perceptual systems, LF and PF, respectively.
For convenience, the study uses the standard notation of X-bar theory. But the
proposals are equally compatible with the Bare Phrase Structure approach (Chomsky
1995).
I follow the “Active lexicon” approach argued for in Siloni (2002). The central
claim advanced in Siloni (2002) is that the lexicon must be an operative component of
17
grammar (contra Marantz 1997, 2000; Borer 2003, who reduce it to a list of entries),
as there are derivational processes which must be assumed to apply prior to the
formation of syntactic structure. More specifically, I adopt the Theta System
framework developed in Reinhart (1996, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002) as a model for the
mental lexicon. Accordingly, I consider the external theta-role as part of the
information predicates bear in the lexicon (as argued in Reinhart and Siloni 2003),
rather than inserted in syntax by a verbal head, such as little v (Chomsky 1995,
Kratzer 1996, among others). The little v hypothesis is untenable within the model of
the lexicon adopted in this study (for systematic argumentation against the little v
hypothesis, see Horvath and Siloni 2003).
18
2. The theory of P
The main goal of the theory of P developed in this study is to explain the
relations between the various manifestations of P in syntax, based on their properties.
It is widely assumed that the distinction between lexical and functional categories
applies to all categories, and is instrumental for syntactic analyses (Chomsky 1986,
Fukui 1986, Fukui and Speas 1986, Abney 1987, Pollock 1989, Grimshaw 1991,
among many others). In this respect, I believe that a well-founded classification of P
is not only important in itself, but in fact is the key to explaining the attested
differences between the various PPs. Thus the primary goal of this chapter will be to
define P with regard to this dimension.
As mentioned in chapter 1, determining whether P is lexical or functional is not
as obvious as one would hope. In the past three decades P was classified as uniformly
lexical (Jackendoff 1977), as uniformly functional (Grimshaw 1991, Baker 2003), and
as both lexical (referred to as ‘grammatical’ or ‘semi-lexical’) and functional
(Emonds 1985, Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998).
From a descriptive point of view, given the diverse manifestations of P to be
accounted for, the non-uniform approach (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998) is apparently the
most appealing one. Adopting it amounts to claiming that P includes two syntactic
categories, the lexical category P and the functional one. In other words, this category
would be a single category type only to the extent that N and D, or T and V are a
single category (in the spirit of Grimshaw’s (1991) ‘extended projection’).
I believe that there are no good reasons to view any members of P as lexical.
Consequently, I put forward the hypothesis in (1):
(1) The main hypothesis
P is uniformly a functional category.
Section 2.1 discusses the properties of P vise a vise the properties of the
functional and the lexical categories, establishing the main hypothesis of the study.
Assuming that P is functional, section 2.2 introduces the three subtypes of P, and
discusses their functions. Section 2.3 clarifies some specific aspects of the lexical
representation of prepositions.
19
2.1 The classification of P
2.1.1 The criteria
The properties used in the linguistic literature to define a given category as
lexical or functional can be divided along the following four criteria:1
i. Class type
ii. Morphological properties
iii. Meaning and function
iv. Syntactic properties
In what follows I will discuss briefly each of the above criteria, and evaluate its
reliability for the task at hand.
(i) Class type
The typical lexical categories N, A, V are known to consist of many members
(hundreds), and to be productive, namely accepting new members. They are referred
to as open class categories. In contrast, functional categories such as C, T or D, are
rather small (consisting of tens of members, rather than of hundreds) and nonproductive (or minimally productive). Therefore they are referred to as closed class
categories (Emonds 1985, Grimshaw 1991, among others). This is a robust and wellfounded generalization, and therefore it provides a solid criterion.
(ii) Morphological properties
Members of the different lexical categories can be derivationally related (e.g.
destroy [V]; destruction [N]; destructive [A]). This property is often referred to as
flexionality (following Jespersen 1924). In contrast, members of the functional
categories are non-flexional, namely they are neither the output nor the input of a
morphological derivation (e.g. if, whether, that, the). Furthermore, members of the
functional categories can be sometimes affixal, clitic-like or even abstract sets of
features (e.g. C[-wh] in English matrix clauses; C[+wh] in Russian or Hebrew matrix
1
I do not mention theory-internal characteristics (cf. Fukui 1986, Abney 1987).
20
yes/no questions).This is completely atypical of the lexical categories, and can
therefore serve as a valid criterion for classifying an element as lexical or functional.
(iii) Meaning and function
Members of the lexical categories are assumed to have specific clear meanings
and fixed functions, as opposed to members of the functional ones which are claimed
to be often ambiguous or meaningless and perform different functions (e.g. English:
that (i) declarative complementizer (He said that she is sick), (ii) relativizer (the game
that Bart likes…), (iii) determiner (That girl is tall)). Note, however, that this
assumption regarding the members of the functional categories is imprecise, as it
applies only to some functional elements, not to all of them. Thus English modals
(e.g. can, may) are unarguably functional elements, as they differ from verbs (cf.
Chomsky 1965, Radford 1988), yet they have rather specific meanings and fixed
functions. The Hebrew relative complementizer ašer (‘that’), which is no doubt
functional (i.e. C), has a unique and specific function.
It appears that the availability of a specific meaning and function does not define
elements belonging to the lexical categories only. Put differently, association with a
specific meaning and/or a fixed function does not preclude an element from belonging
to a functional category (Grimshaw 1991, Zwarts 1995). Consequently, the meaning
and function criterion does not seem to be a reliable one for the lexical/functional
classification.
(iv) Syntactic properties
The relations between a lexical head and its complement seem to differ from the
relations between a functional head and its complement in several respects.
(a) Variety of complements: As opposed to a variety of complements, CP, DP,
PP, taken by the lexical heads (N, V, A), the familiar functional heads C, T and D
have been argued to subcategorize for a specific complement (e.g. C-TP; T-VP; DNP).2, 3
However, as already mentioned in chapter 1, it has been shown in various
studies that this assumption is inaccurate. Thus Siloni (1997) argues that the
2
As mentioned in chapter 1, I do not adopt the little v hypothesis.
The most notable attempts to integrate this assumption into syntactic theory are Grimshaw 1991 and
Van Riemsdijk 1990, 1998 (see chapter 1).
3
21
functional head D can take any complement which is not tensed. Rothstein (1995), in
her analysis of copular constructions, assumes that in languages such as Hebrew or
Russian, the functional head T takes, in addition to VP, also NP, PP or AP
complements. Even the uniqueness of the complement of C, namely TP, might be
questioned in light of Hebrew examples such as ha-xatulim še ba-xacer yafim (‘the
cats that in the garden [are] beautiful’) (for further discussion see chapter 4). To
conclude, permitting more than just one specific complement does not seem to be
unique to the lexical categories, and therefore cannot help us decide whether an
element is lexical or functional.
(b) Head-complement relation: Complements of lexical heads are standardly
assumed to be theta-related to the selecting head. Accordingly, complementation to a
lexical head is not obligatory, but rather depends on the lexical properties of the head.
In contrast, functional heads, which are standardly assumed to subcategorize for their
complement, perform some function on their complement. Thus, in rough lines, D
turns its nominal complement into a referential expression, T anchors the VP in time,
C determines the force of its complement. The mere existence of a functional head is
dependent on the availability of something to operate on. Consequently, the
complement of a functional head is obligatory.4
(d) Movement: The complement of a functional head cannot be moved stranding
the functional head. More specifically, there are no instances of TP being moved
stranding the C, or NP being moved stranding the D.5 In clear contrast, complements
to lexical heads can, of course, be moved stranding the lexical head.6
The above discussion is summarized in the table in (2). As the meaning and
function criterion as well as variety of complements do not seem to be distinctive
enough, they are omitted from the table.7
4
Note, however, that pronouns are often argued to realize D and project a DP with no (lexical)
complement (Abney 1987, but see Ritter 1991).
5
The behavior of T (e.g. in VP-preposing) seems to be exceptional in this respect (see Chomsky 2001).
6
This is widely attested for verbs, but less so for nouns and adjectives, for independent and language
specific reasons.
7
Anticipating the following discussion, the criterion head-complement relation is broken into two
separate criteria in table (2): head-complement relation and syntactic realization of complement.
22
(2)
Criterion
Functional categories
Lexical categories
i. Class type
Small, closed
Large, open
ii. Morphological properties
Non-flexional, affixal, null Flexional, full
iii. Syntactic properties:
Head-complement relation
Subcategorized
Theta-related
Syntactic realization of complement Obligatory
Non-Obligatory
Movement
Possible
Impossible
In what follows I will show that P clearly patterns with the functional categories.
2.1.2 The functional properties of P
According to the criteria in (2), most properties of P are functional.8 I will start
with these and discuss the remaining unclear property of P in 2.1.3.
(i) Type of class
A well-known observation regarding P is that it is a non-productive, closed
category, consisting of a rather small group of items, 20-30, and not hundreds
(Emonds 1985). Therefore the category P is referred to as a minor category, similarly
to the core functional categories.9
(ii) Morphological properties ((non)flexional, full/affixal/null)
Ps are non-flexional. As opposed to the lexical categories and on a par with the
functional ones, Ps are neither inputs nor outputs of systematic derivational processes.
They do, however, show a wide range of etymological sources: verbs, nouns,
adjectives, adverbs, etc. (Van Riemsdijk 1978, Bierwisch 1988, Fries 1991, Vincent
8
I refer to the properties of the functional categories as functional properties, and those of the lexical
categories as lexical properties.
9
For some productivity within the group of complex Ps in Dutch such as pending, concerning, with
regard to, etc., see Zwarts 1997, Van Riemsdijk 1998.
23
1999).10 It is easy to demonstrate that the notions etymological source and
derivational input are fundamentally distinct. For example, the English preposition
past (e.g. The horse raced past the barn) is claimed to be related to the verb passed
(Jespersen 1924). Note, however, that the form of the verb is already an inflected
form (-ed [+past]), which is very unusual as a basis for a morphological derivation.
As an additional example consider the Hebrew preposition li-fney (‘before’, ‘in front
of’), which is related to the noun panim (‘face’). Note, however, that rather than being
related to the free form panim (e.g. ha-panim šel ha-yalda (‘the face of the girl’)), lifney is related to the construct state (CS) form of panim, namely pney (e.g. pney hayalda (‘[the] face [of] the girl’)).11 Furthermore, despite its nominal source, li-fney can
combine with its complement forming a CS only: li-fnei ha-mesiba vs. *le-panim šel
ha-mesiba (‘before of the party’), as opposed to the majority of Hebrew Ns for which
construct or free state combinations are interchangeable (Siloni 2002). The noted nonflexionality of P is arguably closely related to the absence of prepositional
morphology. More specifically, there are no derivational affixes that subcategorize for
Ps, on a par with affixes such as –ness, -ity in English, for instance, which
subcategorize for adjectives to form nouns (e.g. happiness, sincerity). Consequently,
nouns, verbs or adjectives are not derived systematically from prepositions (and vice
versa).12
Ps can be affixal or null: Whether P can be phonetically null (namely a set of
abstract features) is a matter of analysis: Emonds (1985) argues that all semantic
Cases are achieved through an empty P; Kayne (1984) proposes that structurally
governing Ps, such as the Dative to in English, can be phonetically null; Den Dikken
(1995) defines the circumstances that allow P to be phonetically null. Note that only
the functional heads, C, T, D, are widely assumed to be present in the syntactic
structure, regardless of their phonetic realization. Thus the analyses just mentioned
are consistent with the hypothesis that P is a functional category.
10
Probably due to their various sources, there are languages where (some) prepositions seem to behave
as a subclass of verbs, adjectives or nouns (e.g. Navajo (Hale and Paltero 1986); Hebrew (Siloni
2002); Modern Greek (Terzi 2001)).
11
The p/f alternation is due to Hebrew spirantization, p being the underlying phoneme and f its
allomorph.
12
In some languages such as German and Dutch prepositions are used quite extensively in
compounding with verbs (Zwarts 1997). Crucially though, they never constitute the head of the
compound (unlike lexical categories, which may head the compound they are part of).
24
In various languages some Ps are clitic-like and must therefore be attached to the
hosting head (for Hebrew, see Berman 1978, 1981; Grodzinsky 1988, and the analysis
of the Hebrew P-morpheme le- (‘to’) in chapters 4 and 5).13
To conclude, morphologically, P is clearly functional as it is non-flexional and
possibly affixal or phonetically null.
(iii) Syntactic properties
Syntactic realization of complement: Ps certainly have a very strong tendency to
occur with a complement, which is consistent with their classification as functional.
There are, however, languages, among them Hebrew, where some locative Ps realize
their complement optionally (3).14’
15
The phonetically null complement can be
anaphoric (3b,c) or deictic (3c,d) (given a rich enough previous context):
(3)
a. ha-yeladim hitrocecu misaviv la-bayit16
the-children ran
around to+the-house
“The children were running around the house.”
b. rina avra
ba-minharai, ve-dan rac misaviv Øi
Rina passed in+the-tunnel, and-Dan ran around (it)
c. kše
dani ciyer, ha-yeladim hitrocecu misaviv Øi/j
when Dan painted the-children ran
around [Dan/some location]
“When Dan was painting, the children were running around.”
13
See also Webelhuth (1992), where all Ps are assumed to function as affixes.
For similar data from Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese see Zribi-Hertz 1984.
15
Hebrew locative expressions such as bifnim (‘inside’), me’axor (‘behind’), standardly analyzed as
PPs, may seem problematic, as they cannot occur with a complement (i). Interestingly, these
expressions in colloquial Hebrew can occur with the definite determiner and be modified by a
possessive phrase (ii), which may indicate that their classification as PPs should be reconsidered. I
leave this issue for future research.
14
(i)
a. hu pizer praxim bifnim/me’axor
“He spread flowers inside/behind [something].”
b. *hu pizer praxim bifnim/me’axor ha-bayit
“He spread flowers inside/behind the house.”
(ii)
kol ha-bifnim/ha-me’axor šelo haya male avak
all the-inside/the-behind his was full dust
“Its whole interior/back was full of dust.”
16
When followed by a syntactic definite marker ha- (‘the’), Hebrew prepositions le- (‘to’), be- (‘in’)
and ke- (‘as’) are contracted and pronounced as one morpheme (i):
(i)
*le-ha-yalda vs. la-yalda
to-the-girl vs. to+the-girl
25
d. ha-mayim kan zormim me’al Øj ve-mitaxat Øj
the-water here runs
above
and-below
It is worth noting that the observed optionality is very limited, arguably
indicating that the null complement is syntactically realized as an empty category,
which needs to be licensed (cf. Rizzi 1986). Russian locative prepositions, for
instance, do not allow optional realization of their complement at all. Even in
languages such as Hebrew or English, where optionality is attested, only a subset of
the set of locative prepositions allows it (4), (5):17
(4)
a. hem avru
mitaxat (la-bayit)/taxat *(ha-bayit)
they passed under
to+the-house/under the-house
b. hu hityašev me’al (ha-šulxan)/al *(ha-šulxan)
he sat
(5)
above the-table/on the-table
He parked the bicycle under *(the stairs)/below (the stairs)
Following Zribi-Hertz (1984) and Gulligan (1988), I will assume that the null
complement of these Ps is realized as a locative pro. This will suffice to conclude that
the behavior of P regarding the discussed criterion is functional: regardless of its
phonetic realization, the complement of P is syntactically realized.18
Movement: The fact that I view the behavior of P with respect to this criterion as
functional, thereby assuming that the complement of P cannot be moved without it,
may seem surprising, as P-stranding is a well-known phenomenon. However, despite
its familiarity, it is a rare and arguably exceptional phenomenon, attested to various
extents in a few Germanic languages such as English, Dutch and Danish (Van
Riemsdijk 1978). In a wide variety of languages (e.g. Russian, Spanish, Hebrew,
French, etc.) Ps cannot be stranded, on a par with the core functional heads. Thus, in
17
It seems that in Hebrew only locative Ps prefixed with the directional P-morphemes me- (‘from’) or
le- (‘to’) can realize their complement optionally (the relevant example with le- is le-yad (lit. ‘to-hand’
meaning ‘near’).
18
Emonds (1985) classifies particles, which are beyond the scope of this study, as the archetypical
intransitive Ps. Even if true, this should not affect the classification of P as functional. Recall that
pronouns, which are functional, are arguably intransitive too (see fn. 4). For a different view of
particles see Den Dikken (1995).
26
sharp contrast to the core lexical heads, in these languages prepositions pied-pipe
obligatorily under wh-movement (e.g. al ma dan siper? ‘about what [did] Dan tell’?)
(Webelhuth 1992, Grosu 1994, Kayne 1994, Koopman 2000, Horvath 2001).
According to the criteria discussed so far, there is a full alignment between the
properties of P and the functional properties. This by itself is sufficient to maintain the
hypothesis that P is a functional category. To complete the picture, I turn now to the
more controversial property of P, labeled in (2) as head-complement relation.
2.1.3 Head-complement relation
The standard assumption in linguistic theory is that only lexical heads can assign
theta-roles. However, given a certain variety of prepositions (e.g. because, after,
under, above) referred to informally as semantically contentful (see chapter 1), and
certain contexts (e.g. locative), it is rather common to describe the relation between
prepositions and their complements as theta-assignment (cf. Emonds 1985).19 The
classification of P as functional seems inconsistent with its alleged theta-assigning
ability. In what follows I will show that the inconsistency is only apparent, since even
when the relation between P and its complement is a predicate-argument relation, it is
not a theta-relation.
Note first that there are syntactic contexts (6) where theta-assignment clearly
does not seem to be appropriate to describe the P-complement relation (as will be
discussed in details in chapter 3). These contexts do not present a problem for my
hypothesis.
(6)
a. Dan relied on Mary.
b. Marge believes in love.
Let us focus then only on the contexts where the discussed relation is often
assumed to be a theta-relation (e.g. locative PPs), illustrated below:
(7)
a. Dan found a coin in/near the garden.
b. Lisa put the pen on/under the table.
19
I use the familiar notion ‘a semantically contentful P’ just as a convenient label for the present
discussion. In the approach to P developed here, semantic contentfulness does not refer to an inherent
property of individual Ps, but rather follows from the function of P (see 2.2.2).
27
It is intuitively clear that the complement of P does not bear a thematic role such
as Theme, for instance, as its verbal counterpart, e.g. the complement of the verb love.
The thematic role Theme refers to a rather general relation holding between the verb
and its argument. Roughly speaking, if a participant in an event denoted by a verb
does not cause a change in the event, but rather undergoes a change, and in addition it
is not necessarily human, the role of this participant is Theme (Carlson 1984,
Chierchia 1989, Dowty 1989, 1991, Jackendoff 1990, Parsons 1990, Reinhart 2000,
among many others). Different verbs (e.g. eat, love, break, built, etc.) assign this role
to their complement. Thus Themes can be eaten, loved, broken, built, etc.. The label
Theme itself does not tell us anything more particular about the argument bearing it.
The relation between a (semantically contentful) P and its complement
resembles the particular semantic relation between a specific verb (e.g. eat vs. built)
and its (Theme) complement, rather than the general thematic relation. In other words,
as opposed to a verb, which is assumed to provide the set of relations in some event
(i.e. theta-roles), a preposition is the semantic relation itself (Tali Siloni p.c., Joost
Zwarts p.c.).
It is commonly assumed that P is a relational category, i.e. it relates two entities.
In light of the above discussion, I propose the following elaboration. The function of
P is to determine the nature of the relation.20 Thus a locative preposition determines
the relation of its DP complement to some entity (object or event) as a (specific)
location, a preposition like because determines the relation of its clausal or nominal
complement to an event as a cause. Viewed this way, the relation between P and its
complement does not resemble theta-relation. Rather, it is reminiscent of the relation
between a functional head such as T and its VP complement, where the former
determines the relation of the VP to the utterance time. More specifically, T specifies
whether the eventuallity denoted by the verb is before, after or during the utterance
time. Note that the fact that the locative relation is split among a variety of locative Ps
is comparable to the variety of tenses in languages with rich tense/aspect system (e.g.
English, French, etc.) (Julia Horvath, p.c.)
Obviously, the relation specified by a given P is determined by its meaning. In
this respect, recall that being meaningful is fully consistent with being functional (or
20
The most typical relation associated with Ps is the locative/temporal relation, although more abstract
relations such as cause or aboutness are attested too. This study focuses mainly on the locative relation
specified by Ps.
28
lexical, of course) (see the discussion in 2.1.1). For instance, every, some belong to
the functional domain (arguably D), but they are undoubtedly meaningful. The Ps
under discussion differ from the mentioned functional Ds in that the semantic relation
of the former is logically interpreted as a two-place argument-predicate relation,
rather than as the operator-variable relation associated with the latter.
At this point one may note that the claim that Ps are not theta-assigners seems
inconsistent with the common assumption that (semantically contentful) locative Ps
assign inherent (i.e. theta-related) Case to their DP complement (7) (cf. Chomsky
1986). I believe that the notion ‘theta-assignment’ in the standard definition of
inherent Case is an unnecessary historical relic, namely it reflects the early GB
(Government and Binding) assumption (Chomsky 1981) that all arguments are
necessarily theta-marked by the selecting head (Julia Horvath p.c.). In fact, inherent
Case differs from the structural one in that only the former is necessarily assigned to
the argument of the Case-assigning predicate (rather than to an argument of another
predicate). On the assumption that inherent Case is assigned to the argument of the
Case-assigning head, whether theta-argument or not, locative Ps can be viewed as
inherent Case-assigners, without being theta-assigners.21
To summarize, I have shown that the relation between a semantically contentful
P and its complement is not a theta-relation. The function of P is to specify the
semantic relation of its complement to another entity. The misidentification of this
relation as theta-assignment probably stems form the fact that both relations are
predicate-argument relations. The discussed relations, however, are not identical.
Thus while theta-relation entails argument-predicate relation, the opposite is not true.
Viewing the relation between a semantically contentful P and its complement
this way removes the only potential obstacle for the hypothesis that P is a functional
category (1). In other words, there is no reason to view the category P as lexical. On
the contrary, most of the properties of P are clearly functional, and even the one
property which may seem lexical, namely the relation between P and its complement,
has been shown to be fundamentally different from the corresponding lexical
property. In the following subsection further support is provided for the functional
nature of P.
21
For further discussion of prepositional Case see 2.2.1.
29
2.1.4 Additional evidence
The following phenomena support the claim that P is a functional category.
(i) Giorgi (1991:198) notes that Ps, regardless of their function, cannot be
dropped in coordinate structures, as opposed to all the other major lexical heads (8).
This argues strongly against the classification of P as lexical:
(8)
a. John drank beer and Mary ___ water.
b. I consider John a friend of mine and Mary ____ of yours.
c. I believed Teresa happy with us and Luisa ___ with you.
d. *I put the book under the table and the pen _____ the notebook.
e. *I believed Teresa in good shape and Luisa ____ excellent shape.
(ii) In some languages (e.g. Hebrew, English) certain (functional) morphemes
can realize two distinct functional categories. This is illustrated in (9) for the English
morpheme that:
(9)
a. I know [CP [C that] Sacha is a girl].
b. I know [DP [D that] girl].
On the assumption that P is a functional category, the fact that certain
prepositions (e.g. to, for) can realize additional functional heads, such as C and T
(10), is fully expected:
(10)
[C For] Bart [T to] be on time is unbearable.
(iii) Based on the observation that functional words can be stressed or unstressed
(as they do not necessarily constitute prosodic words), whereas lexical ones have to be
stressed, Selkirk (1995) identifies prepositions as words of the functional category
((11a is adapted from Selkirk’s (16), and (11b) is (11) in Selkirk (1995):
(11)
a. …a portrait of Tímothy at hóme
(unstressed Ps)
b. She spoke AT the microphone, not WITH it (focused and therefore
stressed Ps)
30
(iv) Froud 2001 is a psycholinguistic study, where prepositions (without clausal
context) are shown to be treated on a par with determiners and quantifiers (i.e. D) by
Brocca’s (agrammatic) aphasia patients. Consequently, P is argued in Froud (2001) to
be a functional category.22
(v) Some locative Ps exhibit the so-called bottom-up dependency (Van
Riemsdijk 1998). More specifically, the choice of a particular P-morpheme is
determined by its nominal complement (e.g. the picture is hanging on/*in the wall,
but in/*on the air). Van Riemsdijk (1998) notes that this is reminiscent of gendernumber agreement between a noun and its determiner (D), the latter being dependent
on the former. This is illustrated in (12) for French:23
(12)
a. la
the-fem.sg.
b. le
table
table-fem.sg.
livre
the-masc.sg. book-masc.sg
In light of the above, the primary goal of the theory of P developed in this
chapter is achieved. Based on the most distinctive criteria and corroborated by
additional empirical evidence I have shown that P is a functional category. With this
in mind, I turn to examine the role(s) of this category in syntax.
2.2 The role of P
Functional heads are known to fulfill more than one specific role in syntax. For
instance, C can head an argumental CP (e.g. C[±wh]), but it can also head a predicative
(relative) CP (C[+mod/+pred]) (Rizzi 1990, Siloni 1997). The same has been argued for
the functional head D. It can determine the referential capacity of the nominal, thus
22
See, however, Friederici 1982, Grodzinsky 1988 and references cited therein for another view of P
that emerges from psycholinguistic studies.
23
See also Zwarts and Winter (2000), where locative Ps are shown to exhibit inferential regularities
that are comparable with quantified expressions. For instance, like the determiner every the P inside is
transitive (A is inside B; B is inside C Æ A is inside C). The preposition near is symmetric (A is near
B Æ B is near A) similar to the determiner some.
31
allowing it to occur in an argument position (Szabolcsi 1987, 1989; Stowell 1989,
1991; Longobardi 1994), or it can head a modifying (predicative) expression (e.g. in
semi-relatives (Siloni 1997)).
Given this, I advance the following claim:
(13)
P performs three distinct roles in syntax.
In what follows I introduce the roles of P, and discuss their manifestation.
2.2.1 The subtypes
One of the roles of P has already been mentioned in the previous section (2.1.3).
More specifically, I have proposed that the function of the so-called semantically
contentful (e.g. locative) P is to specify the relation of its complement to another
entity (rather than to assign it a theta-role). Let us refer to this type (i.e. function, role)
of P as PR(elation).
Note that PR is not a cover term for a semantically contentful P, as it does not
refer to individual P-morphemes, but rather to one of the functions the category P has
in syntax (the relation between the individual P-morphemes and the functions of P is
discussed in 2.2.2). This particular function is semantically relevant as it is interpreted
as a predicate-argument (two-place) relation (see 2.1.3). The detailed case study of
locative and directional Ps sheds more light on some specific aspects of this function
(chapter 4).
Apart from PR, there are two additional types of roles P fulfills. Consider first
(14):
(14)
a. Bart believes in Lisa.
b. Homer relies on Marge.
The nominals introduced by the prepositions in (14) are typically the (logical
and thematic) arguments of the corresponding verbs, rather than of the prepositions.
Thus the Ps in (14), although apparently locative, cannot be analyzed as PR as they do
not denote a (two-place) relation. The function of these prepositions (argued for
extensively in chapter 3) is to check the structural Case feature of their nominal
complement. Accordingly, this type of P is labeled PC(ase). Taking the Minimalist
32
perspective, I will assume that the P-morphemes instantiating PC function have
uninterpretable φ-features (following Kayne 2001) which enter Agree with the
appropriate DP, checking and deleting its Case feature.
Note that, as far as Case is concerned, I draw a clear distinction between PR and
PC. While the function of PC, by definition, is to check structurally the Case feature of
its nominal complement, the following characterizes Case assignment by PR: (i) The
ability to assign Case is a property of individual P-morphemes realizing PR in a given
language (e.g. in English: under vs. because). (ii) The Case assigned by PR is
inherent, namely Case assigned by a predicate to its argument (as defined in 2.1.3), its
assignment does not involve feature checking.
Finally, consider the examples in (15):
(15)
a. ha-sefer kal le-havana
the-book easy to-understanding
“The book is easy to understand.”
b. dan hevi
et ha-oto le-tikun
Dan brought Acc the-car to-repairing
“Dan brought the car to repair.”
As opposed to PR and PC, whose complements are argumental constituents, CP
or DP, the P in (15) introduces property denoting, predicative constituents (e.g. NP,
rather than DP). The role of P illustrated in (15) is labeled Ppred(icate). (See chapter 5 for
a detailed analysis of this type of P in Hebrew and English).
Given the three types of P I have proposed, and their distinct functions, the
following should be emphasized. The proposed types of P are subtypes of one
functional category P, rather than three separate syntactic categories.
Note that if we assume three distinct categories, the occurrence of the various
prepositions in more than one of the categories would be surprising and puzzling
((16), (17)) (for further discussion see 2.2.2). However, if the three types of P are a
33
single category, it is fully expected that some of its members instantiate more than
one type:24
(16)
a. dan maca
matbe’a ba-gina/al ha-kise
Dan found [a] coin
PR
in+the-garden/on the-chair
b. dan ma’amin ba-teoriya
šelo
PC
Dan believes in+the-theory his
c. dan somex al rina
PC
Dan relies on Rina
(17)
a. dan natan matana le-rina
PC
Dan gave present to-Rina
b. dan maca dira
le-rina
PR
Dan found apartment for Rina
c. ha-sefer kal le-kri’a
Ppred
the book easy to-reading
“The book is easy to read.”
Moreover, consider PP-extraposition in Dutch (sometimes referred to as PPover-V): PPs, regardless of their type (and unlike DPs), can occur both pre- and post
verbally (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998) (18).25 If the subtypes of P were viewed as
different categories, an explanation would be needed as to why exactly these
categories can be extraposed. Obviously, if they are instantiations of the same
category, it is at all not surprising that they behave on a par.
(18)
a. Ik had niet (op zoveel mensen) gerekend (op zoveel mensen)
PC
I had not (on so-many people) counted (on so-many people)
b. Dan (onder de tafel) zat (onder de tafel)
PR
Dan (under the table) sat (under the table)
24
Note that the phenomenon is attested across languages and involves several P-morphemes. Thus it is
not comparable to the instantiation of distinct functional heads (e.g. C and D) by an isolated morpheme
(e.g. that), mentioned in 2.1.4.
25
For ease of presentation I do not give the relevant examples with DPs. These can be found in Van
Riemsdijk (1998).
34
Dutch provides an additional argument which strongly supports the claim that
the three functions I have argued for are performed by the same category (namely, P).
In Dutch [-human] pronominal complements of Ps, regardless of the function of the
corresponding prepositions, are systematically replaced with special pronouns
preceding the P (19). These pronouns are usually called r-pronouns (following Van
Riemsdijk 1978), as they have the r-sound in their phonological form (e.g. er/daar,
‘there’):
(19)
a. Ik had *op het/ er op gerekend
I had
PC
on it /there on counted
b. Hij gaat *voor het/er voor
altijd golfen
PR
He goes before it/there before always play-golf
c. Hij zat *achter het/daar achter
PR
He sat behind that/there behind
The occurrence of r-pronouns with Ps lead Van Riemsdijk to the following
statement:
“…PPs, whatever their functional status, but no other categories are the
conditioning factor for the occurrence of r-pronouns…Therefore no further evidence
will be adduced here to establish the syntactic unity of the category PP.” (Van
Riemsdijk 1978:25)
In sum, there is strong evidence that the proposed types of P are indeed subtypes
of a single syntactic category. To sharpen the view of P argued for here, I now turn to
the instantiation of the subtypes by the P-morphemes.
2.2.2 Realization of the subtypes
I have already mentioned (in 2.2.1) that some prepositions can realize more than
one particular type of P (16), (17). Not surprisingly, this is not true for all
prepositions. The question arises whether the realization of the functions of P by the
prepositions shows any significant regularities. Consider (20) and (21) vs. (22):26
26
These examples are not meant to exhaust all prepositions, but rather to represent the realization of the
types of P.
35
(20)
a. dan maca
matbe’a ba-gina
Dan found [a] coin
PR
in+the-garden
b. dan ma’amin be-rina
PC
Dan believes in-Rina
(21)
a. dan natan matana le-rina
PC
Dan gave present to-Rina
b. dan maca dira
le-rina
PR
Dan found apartment for-Rina
c. ha-sefer kal le-kri’a
Ppred
the book easy to-reading
“The book is easy to read.”
(22)
a. dan maca
matbe’a mitaxat/me’al ha-sefer
Dan found [a] coin
PR
under/above the-book
“Dan found a coin under/above the book.”
b. dan azav biglal/le’axar ha-milxama
PR
“Dan left because of/after the war.”
Note first, that all the prepositions in (20)-(22) can realize PR, whose function is
to specify the relation of its complement to another entity (2.2.1). On the reasonable
assumption that the specific relation denoted by PR is determined by the meaning of
the preposition instantiating PR, the Ps in (20)-(22) have to be those referred to as
semantically contentful. In other words,
(23)
A semantically contentful preposition is a preposition realizing PR.
Viewed this way, the fact that all the prepositions in (20)-(22) can realize PR
indicates that prepositions (in general) are semantically contentful (i.e. meaningful).27
Some of them, however, can realize additional types of P (i.e. PC (20b) and Ppred
(21c)), where they are arguably not contentful (this will be demonstrated in the rest of
27
This does not preclude the possibility that a language will have a P-morpheme with no meaning (as
defined in (23)). The English P-morpheme of might be such an example.
36
the study). Thus, taking the notion ‘semantically contentful’ to refer to the property of
an individual preposition (e.g. be-, ‘in’), independently of its function, will eventually
lead to an inconsistency.
Based on (20)-(22), an additional observation can be made:
(24)
The prepositions in (20) and (21) are phonologically smaller than those
in (22). The former instantiate PC or Ppred (in addition to PR). The latter
instantiate PR only.
The (alleged) descriptive correlation in (24) is reminiscent of the division of Ps
into small and big, sometimes found in the literature (see for instance Williams 1994,
where big prepositions are assumed to assign external and internal theta-roles,
whereas small Ps either lack an external theta-role, or do not assign any theta-roles).28
The question arises as to whether this division is of any theoretical significance, and
therefore has to be reflected in the theory of P, beyond the statement in (24). Let me
show briefly that the answer to this question is negative.
Big Ps, which are always semantically contentful, instantiating PR, are only a
subset of semantically contentful prepositions; small Ps can realize PR as well (20a).
The phonological size of the small Ps, usually instantiating PC and Ppred
functions, varies across languages, ranging from one vowel/consonant to a short
closed syllable, lacking a precise definition. Furthermore, nothing precludes a bigger
P-morpheme in a language from realizing PC (e.g. apo (‘from‘, ‘of’) in Modern
Greek, long (‘at’, ‘to’, ‘on’, etc.) in Bislama (Kurzon 2002)).29
Note that the correlation between the small Ps and the variety of functions they
realize is not unique to P. The same is attested in other functional categories as well.
More specifically, phonologically small morphemes other than Ps tend to have a
greater functional diversity than bigger ones. Thus the Hebrew complementizer še
(‘that’) is a small morpheme, which realizes both a declarative C[-mod] heading an
argumental CP, and a relativizing C[+mod] which heads a predicative CP. In contrast,
ašer (‘that’), which is bigger, is a relativizer only. The definite small morpheme ha- is
both a (definiteness) feature of the nominal head (N) (Siloni 1994, 1997; Danon 1996,
28
Additional more picturesque labels such as ‘colorful’/’colorless’ and ‘dressed’/‘undressed’ are also
found in the literature (cf. Zribi-Hertz 1984, Marácz 1989).
29
Prepositions referred to as small also tend to be highly ambiguous.
37
Borer 1999, among others), and also a relativizer, realizing D[+mod] (in Hebrew semirelatives, Siloni 1997).
It seems that the notion small P says nothing more than the generalization in
(24). For languages where the phonological distinction between the various Pmorphemes is sharp (e.g. Hebrew, English, Russian), small P is a convenient
descriptive label and I will be using it as such.
To summarize, I proposed that the category P fulfils three distinct roles in
syntax: PR, PC and Ppred. PC and Ppred are usually realized by a subset of phonologically
small P-morphemes, whereas PR can be instantiated by almost any preposition. This
suggests that almost any preposition, regardless of its size, can have a meaningful
realization. Before I conclude, let me state explicitly what I will be assuming
regarding the lexical information of Ps.
2.3 Lexical information
The specific aspects of the lexical representation of Ps to be discussed below are
those directly relevant for the lexicon-syntax interface. In other words, I will not be
concerned with the lexical semantics of individual prepositions, but rather with basic
notions such as categorial specification, subcategorization and formal lexical features.
2.3.1 Categorial specification
Recall that I assume the traditional view of the lexicon (chapter 1) (Chomsky
1970, Grimshaw 1990, Reinhart 2000, Siloni 2002), where both the lexical and the
functional categories are categorially specified in the lexicon (e.g. cat [+N -V];
whether [C]). Accordingly, I assume that the categorial specification is included in the
lexical representation of members of P (25): 30
(25)
a. from[P]
b. because[P]
c. at[P]
30
Under recent views of the lexicon (Marantz 1997, 2000; Borer 2003) only the functional categories
are assumed to be categorially specified.
38
On my proposal (section 2.2.1) members of P realize three subtypes of P: PR,
Ppred and PC. Their functions are repeated here for convenience:
(26)
The functions of P
(i) PR specifies the semantic predicate-argument relation between two entities.
(ii) PC checks structural Case (i.e. it checks the uninterpretable Case feature of
its nominal complement).
(iii) Ppred introduces one-place predicates (properties).
As already observed in 2.2.2, (almost) any preposition can realize PR. As far as
lexical information is concerned, nothing special needs to be assumed, apart from the
most natural and trivial assumption, that the meaning of the preposition realizing PR
automatically determines the nature of the relation denoted by PR (e.g. location,
cause, path). This is schematized in (27):
(27)
a. because [PR]
R = cause
b. under [PR]
R = (specific) location
For a subset of Ps that realize PC and Ppred (referred to descriptively as small Ps,
see 2.2.2), I assume that in addition to their lexical meaning, they are associated with
formal features such as φ-features, and/or they can be specified for some grammatical
function such as [pred]. This enables them to realize PC and Ppred functions,
respectively, as shown in rough lines in (28):31, 32
(28)
a. al (‘on’): [PR]
[PC]
b. le- (‘to’): [PR]
[PC]
R = (specific) location
φ-features
R = path
φ-features
[Ppred]
31
I do not mention lexical information which is language specific. For instance, the Hebrew
preposition le- (‘to’) can be affixal, whereas its English counterpart to cannot (see chapters 4 and 5
where this distinction is shown to have significant implications).
32
I do not intend to exhaust all the meanings of the illustrated prepositions.
39
2.3.2 Subcategorization
In fact, given the three types of P, there is no need to specify a subcategorization
frame for a given P in its lexical entry.
The complement of PC is invariably a DP, as only DPs need Case (Chomsky
1981). Since the category of the complement of PC is fully determined by its function,
this information in the particular prepositional entry is redundant.
The same seems to be correct with respect to P realizing Ppred. As will be shown
by study of object gap constructions in chapter 5, the category of the complement of
Ppred in a given language is fixed (e.g. it is nominal in Hebrew and verbal in
English).33
The complement of PR has to be an argumental constituent, namely a CP or a
DP.34 If the relation specified by a given P is locative (as in (27b)), the complement of
this P will be a DP, rather than a CP, as the latter being propositional cannot denote a
location. Otherwise, the choice of CP or DP is free:
(29)
a. dan azav biglal
ha-milxama/še-dina hayta me’acbenet
Dan left because the war/that-Dina
was
annoying
b. dan azav axarey ha-milxama/še-dina ne’elma
Dan left after
the-war/that-Dina
disappeared
33
In order to establish that the subcategorization of this type of P is indeed predictable from its
function (not only in object gap constructions), further research is necessary.
34
Whether clause-introducing Ps such as because take a CP or an IP is not crystal clear. The argument
standardly proposed in support of an IP-complementation is the absence of that in English (i) (Emonds
1985, Webelhuth 1992). However, note first that in Hebrew (ii) (and also in Russian, for instance) the
complementizer še- (‘that’) is obligatory:
(i)
(ii)
Because/after (*that) Dan left, I became sad.
biglal/axarey *(še-) dan azav, na’aseti acuv
because/after (that-) Dan left, [I] became sad
Second, if one assumes that tensed clauses are always CPs, it seems unreasonable to analyze the
complement of P in (i) or (ii) as IP. Finally, some Ps such as bišvil (‘in order’) introduce infinitival
clauses (iii), whose subject is presumably an arbitrary PRO. Consequently, postulating an IPcomplement in these cases is obviously rather problematic.
(iii)
bišvil [PROarb lehacli’ax],
carix lehitmaked
in order
to+succeed, [one] has to+focus
40
In this respect, let me note a potential exception. Consider the two semantically
related instances of PR such as because and since (in its causal meaning). As shown in
(29a) and repeated in (30a), because, as expected, can take either a DP complement or
a clausal one, arguably a CP (see note 34), whereas since can combine only with the
latter ((30b) vs. (30c)). The distinction cannot be attributed to the ability of because as
opposed to the inability of since to assign Case to its complement. The complement of
because is introduced by of (30a), indicating that because is not a Case-assigner. (It is
possible, though, that from some reason since is incompatible with of).
(30)
a. Dan left because of the war/Dina was annoying.
b. *Dan left since (of) the war.
c. Dan left since Dina was annoying.
We may conclude that except some scattered cases, the category of the
complement of any type of P is predictable, and therefore it is not assumed to be part
of the lexical information carried by prepositions.
To summarize, in the approach to P developed in this chapter, P is a functional
category which performs three distinct functions: PR, PC and Ppred. The detailed case
studies of numerous constructions presented in the following chapters will show that
this suffices to account for the variety of syntactic manifestations of P.
41
3. The Phenomenon of Obligatory PPs
The topic of the chapter is two-place verbs whose internal argument is realized
obligatorily as a PP, rather than a DP (PP-verbs, henceforth).1 The phenomenon is not
language-specific, as shown by the following examples:
English
(1)
a. Dan relies *(on) Mira.
b. He believes *(in) love.
c. He looked *(at) the picture.
Hebrew
(2)
a. dan somex *(al) mira
b. hu ma’amin *(be)-ahava
c. hu histakel *(ba)-tmuna
Russian
(3)
a. Dan pologayetsa *(na) Miru
b. on verit *(v) lubov
c. on posmotrel *(na) kartinu
The Ps that occur with PP-verbs are phonetically small (e.g. on, in or at, rather
than under, near or above). The choice of the P-morpheme is rigid, one particular
preposition per verb, as shown in (4):
(4)
a. Dan relies *in/on Mary.
b. He believes *at/*on/in love.
It is widely assumed that the internal argument of a PP-verb is not the PP, but
rather the DP complement of the P.
1
The study focuses on verbs which occur obligatorily with a PP. Thus (aspectual) alternations
involving PPs (i) and verbs such as worry (about), for which the occurrence of the PP is optional, are
outside its scope.
(i)
a. dan kara iton/ba-iton
Dan read newspaper/in+the-newspaper
b. dan axal marak/me-ha-marak
Dan ate soup/from-the-soup
42
The phenomenon of PP-verbs, although widely attested, has received very
little attention in the literature. The following alleged empirical observations are
probably the main reason for the neglect of these verbs: (i) It seems to be
unpredictable whether a certain two-place verb is a DP-taking verb or a PP-verb in a
given language and across languages. Thus, as noted in Neeleman (1997), see and
watch take a DP, while look and glance take a PP. The verb betray in English is a DP
taking verb, whereas in Hebrew it is a PP-verb bagad be- (‘betrayed in’). (ii) The
choice of a particular P for a given PP-verb is rather idiosyncratic. Although you
believe in someone both in English and in Russian, you depend on someone in
English, but ‘from’ someone in Russian (zavisit ot, ‘depends from’).
The goal of this chapter is to explain the phenomenon of PP-verbs, thereby
shedding more light on one of the functions of P.
The chapter is structured as follows: Section 3.1 discusses two previous
approaches to PP-verbs and shows that none of them can explain the phenomenon of
PP-verbs. In section 3.2 I advance the hypothesis that the set of PP-verbs is defined
thematically. The specific implementation of the hypothesis within the Theta System
of Reinhart (2000, 2001, 2002) leads to the explanation of the phenomenon in 3.3.
The validity of the thematic definition of the set of PP-verbs is argued for in section
3.4. Section 3.5 provides an account of the cross-linguistic variation attested by PPverbs, on the basis of data from Hebrew, Russian and English.
3.1 Previous approaches
To explain the phenomenon of PP-verbs implies answering the following
question: Why are there verbs that realize their internal argument as a PP, rather than
a DP? We can break up this question into two related ones, posited from two different
angles, the verbal angle and the prepositional one:
1. What do PP-verbs have in common, which gives rise to the occurrence of a PP?
2. What is the function of the Ps occurring in PP-verb constructions?2
2
Which prepositions occurs with which verb is a separate and independent question, not addressed in
this study.
43
In the few existing treatments of PP-verbs, the occurrence of the PP is assumed
to be rooted either in a Case deficiency of the relevant verbs (Hestvik 1991), or in
their thematic deficiency (Neeleman 1997, following Marantz 1984). Let us examine
to what extent such approaches to the phenomenon are explanatory.
3.1.1 The verbal angle
Hestvik’s (1991) claim that P in PP-verb constructions is a Case-assigner implies
that PP-verbs cannot assign Accusative Case to their complements, or, in the
Minimalist terminology (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001), that these verbs cannot check
and delete the Case-feature of their DP-arguments.
The categorial feature specification of V is [-N, -V] (Chomsky 1970). It reflects
the standard assumption in the GB (Government and Binding) framework (Chomsky
1981), that verbs are canonical Case-assigners. Thus, one does not expect to find
verbs which cannot assign Case by themselves, modulo Burzio’s generalization
(Burzio 1986).3 In this respect, it is worth noting that the verbs under discussion, as a
group (there may be exceptions), are not unaccusative. Many of them, in addition to
the internal argument, have an Experiencer, Agent or Cause argument, which are
assumed to map externally (Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995, Reinhart 2000, among
many others).
In the Minimalist framework (cf. Chomsky 1995), (structural) Case is viewed as
a reflex of agreement between the φ-features of a DP and the φ-features of the
relevant (verbal) head. On the standard assumption, Agree with the (uninterpretable)
φ-set of the functional head T results in Nominative. Accusative is assumed to be
checked/deleted upon Agree with the functional head called little v dominating the
lexical verbal projection (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001; Kratzer 1996; Doron 2003,
among others).4 Little v was introduced by Chomsky 1995 (inspired by the work of
Hale and Keyser 1992, 1994) as the verbal functional head which despite its
functional status introduces the external argument of a transitive verb with some
causative force (e.g. break, eat), and arguably the Experiencer argument of subjectExperiencer verbs such as love or hate. The absence of little v entails the verb’s
3
It has been noted by Burzio (1986) that: A verb Case-marks its internal argument if and only if it
assigns a theta-role to its external one. This is referred to as ‘Burzio’s Generalization’.
4
Recall that I do not adopt the little v hypothesis (see chapter 1.2). However, for the sake of argument,
I consider briefly whether the existence of this head is of any significance for the identification of PPverbs.
44
inability to agree with its DP-object and delete its uninterpretable Case feature [Acc]
(e.g. unaccusative or passive verbs). As already mentioned, the verbs under discussion
are two-place verbs with an external argument, thus there is no reason to assume that
lack of little v may be the reason why they cannot check Case.
Neeleman (1997) (contra Hestvik (1991)), argues that the occurrence of
prepositions in PP-verb construction is due to the thematic deficiency of the verb. He
proposes that the verb and the preposition form a complex predicate at LF and jointly
theta-mark the DP complement of a P.
Note that verbs are canonical predicates, and therefore theta-assigners. Thus we
do not expect to find verbs that need the assistance of a P in order to assign their
internal theta-role.5
To recapitulate, the deficiencies attributed to PP-verbs in each of the views are
stipulated. These views do not suggest an explanatory account, because they do not
answer the question why there are two-place verbs that have these deficiencies, and
what distinguishes this particular set of Vs from the ‘non-deficient’ ones.
Let us now turn to the second question: What is the function of the discussed Ps?
3.1.2 The prepositional angle
Hestvik (1991), in his study of the diverse binding effects found with various
kinds of PPs, claims that Ps occurring in PP-verb constructions are completely nonthematic, and that their only function is to assign Case to their DP complement, the
argument of the verb.
However, if Case was the only issue here, one would expect one (at most two)
specific preposition, on a par, with of or šel/be- (‘of’, ‘in’) which appear with Ns and
As in English or Hebrew, respectively: ha-nitu’ax šel ha-gufa (‘the operation of the
corpse’); ge’e be-hesegav (‘proud of his achievements’). But this is not the case. The
set of P-morphemes occurring in PP-verb constructions is limited, but it does contain
several members (rather than being a one-member set consisting of a ‘dummy’
preposition such as of). Thus, although Case may be at stake here, Case alone does not
seem to be a satisfactory answer.
5
If a given verb has more than one internal argument, the assistance of a P is arguably needed in order
to specify the semantic role of the second (internal) argument (Marantz 1984). As already mentioned,
the discussed verbs have an external argument and an internal one, rather than two internal arguments.
45
Neeleman (1997) has a different explanation for the occurrence of P in PP-verb
constructions (‘PP-complements’, in his terminology). In Neeleman’s account the
function of P is thematic. As already mentioned in 3.1.1, P and V jointly theta-mark
the DP at LF.6
Neeleman bases his proposal on the following observation. There are verbs such
as believe which alternate between PP and DP complements:
(5)
a. We believe in Dan.
b. We believe Dan.
Neeleman notes that (5a) and (5b) have rather different interpretations. To
sharpen the observation we may assume that Dan is a politician, and a liar. We can
say (5a) without sounding like complete idiots, meaning that we believe that Dan can
do the job. However, given the same scenario, (5b) is totally inappropriate. We can
even conjoin (5a) and (5b), while negating one of the conjuncts as in: ‘We don’t
believe Dan, but we believe in him’. The resulting utterance is not a contradiction,
meaning that (5a) and (5b) do not have the same truth conditions. Based on this
Neeleman concludes that the P of PP-verbs has a semantic contribution and therefore
it is a theta-assigner.
Neeleman’s observation is neither verb- nor language-specific. Consider the
following Hebrew examples (adapted from Rubinstein 1971):
(6)
a. dan ba’at et
ha-even/*ha-kir (le-yosi)
dan kicked Acc the-stone/*wall to-Yosi
b. dan ba’at ba-
even/kir (*le-yosi)
dan kicked in+the-stone/wall to-Yosi
In (6a) the DP has to be moveable, and a Goal argument can be added, whereas
in (6b) any DP is fine, but a Goal argument cannot be added. Thus it is clear that (6a)
and (6b) have different meanings.
6
Recall that under the approach to P developed in chapter 2, P is a functional category not involved in
theta-assignment. The claim that in certain contexts Ps are semantic amounts to identifying their
function as PR.
46
The question which arises at this stage is the following: Is it the preposition
which induces the noted meaning difference (as proposed in Neeleman 1997), or
rather P has no semantic contribution of its own, and it is compatible only with one of
the meanings of the verb? I will return to this question and present arguments for the
non-semantic nature of P in PP-verb constructions in 3.3.1.7
To summarize, the accounts of the phenomenon of PP-verbs, which are based on
either Case deficiency of these verbs (Hestvik 1991) or on their thematic deficiency
(Neeleman 1997) can provide only partial explanations. The aspect not addressed in
these accounts is the nature of the connection between the verb’s meaning and the
occurrence of a preposition. Is the connection systematic? In what way? I will address
exactly this aspect in my analysis.
As already mentioned, PP-verbs are found in many languages. But given the
complexity of the task at hand, I will start the inquiry of PP-verbs focusing on
Hebrew.
3.1.3 PP-verbs in Hebrew
The group of PP-verbs in Hebrew is quite large. I have worked with a random
sample of 70 verbs (see Appendix B). As mentioned, these verbs are two- (three)place predicates, which realize their internal argument as a PP, rather than a DP. The
most common P occurring in PP-verb constructions in Hebrew is be- (‘in’/‘at’).
Additional prepositions are al (‘on’), le- (‘to’/‘for’), me- (‘from’/‘of’).8
For expository reasons, I introduce a sample of Hebrew PP-verbs divided
intuitively into sub-groups, according to their meanings. The list to follow is not
meant to be exhaustive.9
7
The number of DP/PP alternating verbs is very small. The vast majority of PP-verbs do not alternate
between PP and DP complements.
8
There are a few verbs such as hitvada (‘confessed’) and hitxanen (‘pleaded’), which in addition to the
PP complement headed by a small P, take a PP complement headed by a complex P such as
bifney/lifney (‘in front of’):
(i)
9
dan hitvada
al pša’av
bifney ha-šofet
Dan confessed on crimes+his in-front the-judge
“Dan confessed his crimes to the judge.”
For ease of presentation, the PP-verbs in the text are limited to those that appear with be- (‘in’) and al
(‘on’). The full sample includes PP-verbs with le-/el (‘to’) and me- (‘from’) (Appendix B).
47
(7) Verbs of (dis)belief: he’emin be- (‘believe in’), batax be- (‘trusted’), samax al
(‘relied on’), nitla be- (‘depended on’), xašad be- (‘suspected’), pikpek be(‘doubted’/’questioned’), ‘kine be-/le-’ (‘envied’, was ‘jealous of’).
(8) Verbs of looking: hibit/histakel be- (‘looked/glanced at’), hivxin be- (‘noticed’),
hitbonen be- (‘inspected’, ‘observed’), cafa be- (‘watched’), baha be- (‘glared at’).
(9) Verbs of physical contact: xavat be- (‘hit’), ba’at be- (‘kicked’), naga be(‘touched’), halam/hika be- (‘beat’).
(10) Verbs of abstract contact: tamax be- (‘supported’), nazaf be- (‘scolded’), hifcir
be- (‘pleaded with’), tipel be- (‘dealt with’), he’ic be- (‘urged’), xibel be(‘sabotaged’), alav be- (‘hurt’), paga be- (‘hit’, ‘hurt’, ‘damaged’), bagad be(‘betrayed’), šita be- ([made] ‘fool of’), hišpi’a al (‘influenced’), iyem al
(‘threatened’), pakad al (‘ordered’), asar al (‘forbid’).
(11) Geographic relation verbs: gaval be- ([had] ‘border with’), xalaš/šalat al (was
located above), hiškif al (‘overlooked’, in its geographical sense).
(12) De-animal verbs: zinev be- (literally: cut the ‘tail’, meaning: made less, cut the
edge), ximer be- (speed up an animal).
There is a significant group of PP-verbs in the hitpa’el verbal template
(exemplified in (13)). The relevant characteristic of this template (on a par with
templates such as nif’al and the pure passive pu’al and huf’al) is its inability to assign
or check Accusative. Thus, for the hitpa’el group of PP-verbs, it would be reasonable
to claim that the function of P is to assign or check Case. This fact, by itself, does not
have any far-reaching implications for the phenomenon of PP-verbs, since the fact
remains that the vast majority of PP-verbs in Hebrew are not in hitpa’el (or in any
non-Accusative template, for that matter). Despite the fact that my main effort will
not be directed towards this group, its existence will turn out to be helpful in
clarifying certain issues.
48
(13) Internal argument-taking hitpa’el verbs: hit’anyen be- ([was] ‘interested in’),
hitkaša be- ([had] ‘difficulties with’), hitbayeš be- ([was] ‘ashamed of’), histapek be([was] ‘satisfied with’), hitxaret al (‘regretted’), hit’abel al (‘mourned’), hit’akeš al
(‘insisted on’), hištatef be- (‘took part in’), hitmaked/hitrakez be- (‘focused on’),
hit’asek be- ([was] ‘engaged in’), hitbayet al (‘locked on’).
The set of PP-verbs exemplified above (7)-(13) is difficult to define. In my
investigation of the properties of PP-verbs (see (14) below), I have examined their
behavior with regard to criteria such as membership in the aspectual categories,
checking both the classical four-ways classification into states, activities,
achievements and accomplishments (Vendler 1967, Dowty 1979), and the two-way
classification into states and events (Hinrichs 1985); the ability to undergo
passivization; the number and the nature of the related nominalizations; the nature of
the external theta-role regarding causality (i.e. Agent/Cause vs. Experiencer/Theme),
and regarding the [human] feature (i.e. Agent/Experiencer vs. Cause/Theme); the
ability of the verb to appear in additional verbal templates, inspired by Doron (2003).
Although the attempt to define the set of the PP-verbs on the basis of these
criteria does not result in a clear picture, it does show some rather clear tendencies,
some of which are presented in (14). The full list of PP-verbs and their behavior
regarding each of the criteria appears in Appendix B (Tables 1, 2).
(14) Some of the findings
a.
70% of the PP-verbs are isolated roots (appear in one verbal template only).
b. 20% have Passive (e.g. tamax/nitmax (‘supported’); bagad/nivgad
(‘betrayed’)).
c.
78% have a single nominal (e.g. bagad - bgida (‘betrayed’ – ‘betrayal’);
ba’at- be’ita (‘kicked’ – ‘a kick’)).
d.
11% have no nominal at all (e.g. samax (‘relied’)).
e.
50% have no event nominal (e.g. be’ita (‘a kick’), xašad (‘suspicion’)).
It is important to note, that for a list of randomly picked 30 Accusative
assigning verbs (Appendix B, Table 3), none of the above tendencies are attested.
49
3.2 The proposal
Inspired by Dowty (1991), I propose that PP-verbs denote verbal concepts
which, in some sense, are less transparent than others. Consider again the contrast in
(6) repeated in (15). In (15a) we know exactly what happened to the stone, it moved
as a result of the event denoted by the verb ba’at (‘kicked’). Thus in (15a) the
movement of the stone is entailed. There is no such entailment in (15b). All we know
for sure is that Dan’s foot touched the stone (with force).
(15)
a. dan ba’at
et ha-even
Dan kicked Acc the-stone
b. dan ba’at
ba-even
Dan kicked in+the-stone
I do not suggest that all PP-verbs are non-transparent in the same way, but rather
that they are non-transparent in some way or another. Since the non-transparency is
semantic (i.e. it is related to the verb’s meaning), it is plausible to assume that it stems
from the thematic structure of the verb. Inspired by Reinhart (2000, 2001, 2002), I
advance the hypothesis in (16):
(16) The underspecification hypothesis
The internal theta-role of PP-verbs is not fully specified.
Given (16), the following question arises: What has to be specified? Before I
answer it, a short digression regarding the theta-roles is in order.
3.2.1 Theta roles
Thematic relations were posited by Gruber (1965) as the basic structural
relations at a ‘Pre-lexical’ semantic level of representation. A common way to talk
about thematic relations with respect to a given verb is to name the theta-roles a given
verb assigns to its arguments, Agent, Cause, Patient, Theme, Experiencer, Goal, Source
and Instrument. It is further assumed that the mapping between the semantic titles and
the syntactic structure is quite systematic and predictable (Belletti and Rizzi 1988;
50
Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997; Pesetsky 1995, among others). What is significant
for the present discussion is that the mentioned authors treat theta-role as primitives.
Note that the view of theta-roles as primitives and the notion of semantic
transparency induced by the thematic structure are incompatible. In what sense a theta
role like Theme would be less or more specified (transparent) than the theta-role Goal?
These are just labels. For the hypothesis in (16) to be meaningful a different approach to
theta-roles is needed, an approach which does not view theta-roles as primitive atomic
notions. Such approaches exist.
3.2.1.1 Thematic decomposition:
Jackendoff (1990) decomposes verbal
concepts into conceptual categories such as Thing, Event, State, Action, Place, Path.
The Event category is elaborated on two tiers (along the lines of tier phonology). It is
elaborated as Event-functions (e.g. Stay, Go, Be) on the Thematic tier, which deals
with motion and location, and as AFFECT-function on the Action tier which deals
with the causal relations. The thematic roles which occur on the thematic tier are
Theme, Goal, Source, whereas those on the Action tier are roles such as Actor and
Patient. An argument can appear on both tiers or only on one of them. In order to
illustrate both situations consider (17):
(17)
a. dan ba’at et
ha-kadur
Dan kicked Acc the-ball
b. dan ba’at ba-kadur
Dan kicked in+the-ball
To keep the presentation simple, I will use an informal Jackendovian description
to illustrate the analyses of (17a) and (17b) in (18a) and (18b), respectively:
(18)
a. ‘Dan kicked the ball’
Source
Goal
(thematic tier)
Actor
Patient
(action tier)
b. ‘Dan kicked in+the-ball’
Theme
Actor
Goal
(thematic tier)
(action tier)
51
In both (18a) and (18b) the internal argument ha-kadur (‘the ball’) is represented on
the thematic tier. However, while in (18a) it is also represented on the Action tier as
the affected argument, in (18b) it does not appear on this tier at all. Given the contrast
between the action tiers of (18a) and (18b), it is plausible to translate ‘not fully
specified theta-role’ in Jackendoff’s proposal as non-appearance on the Action tier.
Note, however that non-occurrence on the Action tier does not distinguish
between locative PPs (e.g. Dan sits in the garden), and those in PP-verb constructions
(e.g. Dan believes in his garden). Further, given its lexical-semantics orientation,
Jackendoff’s approach is not designed to account for the Case issue, which I believe is
relevant for the phenomenon of PP-verbs. Therefore, I will not pursue this approach
further.
3.2.1.2 Semantic entailments: Dowty (1991) proposes to define the subject and
direct object theta-roles by Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient entailments. As noted by
Dowty himself, the verbs under discussion (i.e. PP-verbs) clearly do not fall under his
proposal since their object is not a direct one. Furthermore, the mapping to
subject/direct object is not absolute, but rather relative. More precisely, an argument
is mapped as a direct object/subject, not necessarily because it has all the ProtoPatient/Agent entailments. Rather, for a given argument to be mapped onto a certain
position (subject/direct object), it is enough for this argument to have some
entailments appropriate for this position, if the other argument has less entailments of
this kind. Thus, even if Proto-Patient entailments are relevant to some extent to the
notion ‘not fully specified theta-role’ introduced in (16), they cannot be used to define
the internal argument of PP-verbs. Finally, similarly to Jackendoff (1990), the issue of
Case is not likely to play a role in Dowty’s approach, since it is semantically
orientated. Despite the fact that I will not adopt Dowty (1991) to account for the
phenomenon of PP-verbs, I will be using some of his insights where relevant.
3.2.1.3 The Theta System: Inspired by the phonological feature system that
underlies the composition of phonemes, Reinhart (1996, 2000, 2001, 2002) motivates
a system of formal features that compose theta-roles and define theta-selection.
Similarly to the phonological feature system, the value of a given feature can be
specified or non-specified. I will present the theta-features in the following
subsection. However, even before this, it can be seen that Reinhart’s proposal is very
52
suitable for the problem at hand. Given the Theta System, the notion ‘not fully
specified theta-role’ is translated naturally as ‘a theta-role not specified with regard to
one of the features that compose it’. The hypothesis in (16) can be now slightly
reformulated as in (19):
(19) The underspecification hypothesis (reformulated)
The internal theta-role of PP-verbs is underspecified (where ‘underspecified’
means composed of a feature cluster with an unspecified feature value).
A related hypothesis, stated in (20), will be derived as we proceed:
(20) An underspecified internal theta-role is realized as a PP.10
In what follows I will present the parts of the Theta System (Reinhart 2000)
relevant for the present discussion.
3.2.2 The theta-features (Reinhart 2000)
Reinhart (2000) proposes that theta-relations are coded in the lexicon by two
binary specified (+/-) features (21). The features are legible to the Inference System
and therefore are not erased in the Computational System (CS), but passed on through
the derivation:
(21) The features that compose theta-roles
[m] = mental state involved
[c] = cause change
Given the binary specification, there are eight possible combinations of the two
features introduced in (21). These are summarized in (22):
10
As stated, (20) does not preclude fully specified theta-clusters from being realized as PPs (see
Appendix A for some examples to this effect).
53
(22) Possible theta-clusters (or theta-roles)
[+m+c] = Agent
[+m-c] = Experiencer
[-m+c] = Instrument
[-m-c] = Theme/Patient
[+m] = Mental11
[+c] = Cause
[-m] = Subject Matter/Target12
[-c] = Goal13
There are four fully specified theta-roles, and four theta-roles specified for one
of the features, but not for the other. The non-specified feature should be read as
being consistent with either specification. For instance, [+c] (Cause) and [-c] (Goal),
not being specified for /m, are consistent with both /+m and /-m; [-m] (Subject
Matter/Target) and [+m] are is consistent with /+c and /-c.14’ 15
Since there are four underspecified roles in the Theta-System: [+c], [+m], [-c]
and [-m], and given the hypothesis that PP-verbs have an underspecified internal
theta-role (19), the question is whether all four underspecified clusters can be merged
internally. Reinhart’s (2000) answer to the question is presented in the next
subsection.
11
Labeled as such by Everaert (2002).
This role was introduced in Pesetsky (1995), in order to distinguish between the external theta-role
(‘Causer’) assigned by an Experiencer predicate such as worry (The doctor worried Dan), and its
internal argument (‘Subject Matter’/‘Target’) (e.g. Dan worries about his health).
13
Following Maling 2001, Goal should be understood as a general title for the class of goal arguments
such as Recipient, Beneficiary, Spatial goal, etc.
14
It is worth noting that although an underspecified [+c] cluster is consistent with /+m interpretation, it
is not identical to the fully specified [+c+m] (Agent) theta-role. The difference between verbs like open
and roll, whose external theta-role can be interpreted as Agent/Cause/(Instrument), and verbs like eat,
hide, whose external argument is interpreted only as an Agent follows from the claim that the former
assign externally the [+c] theta-role, whereas the latter assign the fully specified [+c+m] cluster.
15
The [+m] cluster, which is consistent with either Agent ([+c+m]) or Experiencer ([-c+m])
interpretations, is rather intriguing. It is proposed in Reinhart (2001) to be assigned by perception verbs
such as see and hear, as well as by Experiencer verbs like love and hate.
12
54
3.2.3 The mapping generalizations and lexicon marking
The marking of a verb’s arguments in the lexicon and their syntactic mapping
are presented in (23) and (24), respectively.
(23)
Lexicon marking16
Given an n-place verb-entry, n>1,
a. Mark a [-] cluster with index 2.
b. Mark a [+] cluster with index 1.
c. If the entry includes both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster [/α, /-c],
mark the verb with the [Acc] feature.
(24)
CS merging instructions
a. When nothing rules this out, merge externally.17
b. An argument realizing a cluster marked 2 merges internally; An argument
realizing a cluster marked 1 merges externally.
Given the lexicon marking in (23a,b) and the mapping generalizations in (24),
only the underspecified theta-roles [-m] and [-c] can be merged internally. Each of
them is a [-] cluster, a cluster all of whose features have the value /-, and hence is
marked 2 (by (23a)). Their internal mapping is made explicit by (24b). (In contrast,
[+m] and [+c] are marked 1 (23b) and map externally (24b)).
At this point two rather unrelated questions arise, both of which deserve an
answer: 1. Why are the underspecified [-m] and [-c] roles realized as a PP, rather than
a DP? 2. Which PP-verbs assign [-c] and which assign [-m]? The answer to the
second question is based on the interpretation of the theta-features. This issue, though
important, is orthogonal to the syntactic account of the phenomenon of PP-verbs.
16
Notation:
[α] = Feature cluster α.
/α = Feature (and value) α. (E.g. the feature /+m occurs in the clusters [+c+m], [-c+m] and +m].)
[/α] = A cluster one of whose features is /α. (E.g. [/-c] clusters are [-c+m], [-c-m] and [-c].)
[+] = A cluster ALL of whose features have the value +. (E.g. [-] clusters are [-c-m], [-c], [-m].)
17
(24a) is designed to account for the unpredictable mapping of the mixed clusters [+c-m] (Instrument)
and [-c+m] (Experiencer). These theta-clusters do not receive a merging index. Therefore, when there
is no cluster marked 1in the theta-structure of a given verb, or alternatively, the cluster marked 1 is not
realized, these clusters can be merged externally. Existence and realization of the cluster marked
1results in internal merge of the mixed clusters (for further details see Reinhart 2000, 2001a,b).
55
Therefore I delay the answer to this question until section 3.4, and proceed with the
first one.
3.2.4 Why a PP?
Actually, the answer to the question why the underspecified clusters are realized
as a PP (rather than a DP) follows from (23c) (repeated below for convenience) and
few standard assumptions.
(23)
c. If the entry includes both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster
[/α, /-c], mark the verb with the [Acc] feature.
Based on (23c), and given the hypothesis that the internal argument of PP-verbs
is not fully specified (19), these verb are not marked with the [Acc] feature.
[Acc] in the Theta System corresponds to the ability of a verb to check the
(uninterpretable) Case feature of a DP. Thus (23c) (i.e. [Acc] marking) is consistent
with the more familiar implementation of Case-checking assumed in the Minimalist
framework (cf. Chomsky 1995, 2001). More specifically, being marked with [Acc] is
parallel to having a full set of uninterpretable φ-features, carried by the verbal
functional head v (v* in Chomsky 2001).18 Note that the class of verbs marked with
[Acc] in Reinhart (2000) coincides with the class of verbs whose lexical projection is
assumed to merge with v (the locus of the uninterpretable φ-features) in the
Minimalist framework, the so-called transitive verbs (e.g. kill, kiss, love).19
Given this, let me summarize the relevant assumptions (i)-(iv) and their
consequence (v):
(i) The Case feature of a nominal is uninterpretable, and therefore has to be deleted
(Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001).
(ii) [Acc] is the ability of a verb to check the Case feature of a DP, therefore only
verbal entries which are lexically marked with [Acc] can check the Case of a DP (the
above discussion).
18
For a more elaborated view of [Acc] see Reinhart and Siloni 2003.
The notion ‘transitive’ in the present context should be taken in its narrow syntactic sense. It refers to
two-place verbs whose internal argument is realized as a DP, distinguishing between verbs such as kill,
love, on the one hand, and rely (on), believe (in), on the other hand. In its broader (semantic) use, the
term ‘transitive’ refers to two-place verbs with an external argument and an internal one, whether direct
(DP) or indirect (PP).
19
56
(iii) Assignment of [Acc] depends on the theta-structure of a given verbal entry (i.e. θ1
θ [-c, -/+m], as in (23c)) (Reinhart 2000).
(iv) The internal theta-role of the PP-verbs is underspecified ([-c]/[-m]), therefore
these verbs lack [Acc] (the hypothesis in (19) and (23c)).
(v) A PP-verb, not being marked [Acc], is incapable of deleting the Case feature of its
internal nominal argument (the consequence of (i)-(iv)).
Based on the above, we may draw the following conclusion: There has to be
some other head, which can check the Case feature of the nominal argument of a PPverb.
I propose that P is the head which checks the (structural) Case feature of the
internal DP argument of a PP-verb. Consequently, this argument is realized as a PP,
rather than as a DP. 20, 21
At this stage we can already understand why in the previous analyses (e.g.
Hestvik 1991, Neeleman 1997 discussed in 3.1) the phenomenon of PP-verbs is
accounted for as either a Case-related phenomenon or a theta-related one. The reason
is that both theta and Case are relevant. The theta-structure of a verbal entry
determines whether the verb has the ability to check the Case of a nominal (i.e. [Acc])
or not. The verbs under discussion systematically lack this ability, as their internal
clusters are underspecified. Therefore they cannot check the Case of their internal
nominal argument. Consequently, the occurrence of P is indeed Case-related, but it is
thematically motivated.
20
Given the claim that P checks the structural Case feature of the nominal, rather than assigns inherent
Case, one may wonder why this is not achieved with a single P-morpheme. I address the issue in 3.3.3.
21
In addition to the discussed group of PP-verbs, the following two groups of verbs are predicted by
the Theta System to be PP-verbs as well: (a) Two/three-place verbs which lack a cluster marked 1 (i.e.
an external theta-role) are not marked for [Acc] (e.g. piacere type of Experiencer verbs, see Belletti and
Rizzi 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Reinhart 2001, Landau 2002, among others):
(i)
dan[-c+m] nehena
Dan
enjoyed
me-ha-muzika[-m]
from-the-music
(b) Verbal entries derived by the lexical operation which reduces a [+c] theta-cluster, thus removing
[Acc] (Reinhart 2000):
(ii)
a. ha-rofe[+c] hid’ig et dan[-c+m] (additional theta-role [-m] is not realized)
the-doctor worried Acc Dan
b. dan[-c+m] do’eg
li-vri’uto[-m]
([+c] is reduced)
Dan
worries to- [about]- his health
57
3.3 The function and syntactic status of P
Identifying the function of P in PP-verb constructions as structural Casechecking amounts to identifying the P as PC, rather than as PR (see 2.2.1).22 The latter
specifies the (semantic) relation of its complement to another entity, and therefore is
interpreted as a two-place predicate, licensing inherent Case on its complement (see
chapter 2 for the definition of inherent Case). In what follows I will show that viewing
P in PP-verb constructions as PC is fully supported.
3.3.1 The P is PC
The claim that the function of the discussed prepositions is PC is consistent with
the widely-accepted assumption that in PP-verb constructions, the DP-complement of
P is the argument of the verb, not of P. It is also consistent with the observation that
the set of prepositions participating in these constructions is limited and consists of
phonologically small Ps. Recall that the latter are associated with uninterpretable φfeatures (see 2.3.1) enabling them to check the structural Case of the nominal.
There is no reason to believe that PP-verbs have recourse to PR, despite the fact
that their P-morphemes are of the locative variety (e.g. on, in, at). Locative Pmorphemes functioning as PR specify a locative relation, and license inherent Case.
The following clearly indicates that neither of these is attested in PP-verb
constructions.
(i) Consider Russian, which marks Case morphologically as a suffix on the
nominal (apart from Nominative). In addition to the standard Accusative, Dative and
Genitive Cases, Russian also has Instrumental and the so-called Locative Case,
assigned by some locative Ps in clearly locative contexts.23 Within the group of
locative Ps that assign Locative (or Instrumental) Case, there is a sub-group of
phonologically small Ps which assign Locative in some contexts (25) but Accusative
in others (26):
22
Under the approach to P developed in chapter 2, these are the only options. The third recognized type
of P, Ppred, is not a candidate, as it combines with predicative phrases (see chapters 2 and 5).
23
There are locative Ps such as vozle (‘near’) which assign Genitive.
58
(25)
a. on našol konfet-u
v karman-e
he found candy-Acc in pocket-Loc
“He found the/a candy in the pocket.”
b. on našol konfet-u
na stol-e
he found candy-Acc on table-Loc
“He found the/a candy on the table.”
(26)
a. on verit
v Sach-u/etu teori-yu
he believes in Sacha-Acc/this theory-Acc
“He believes in Sacha/this theory.”
b. on pologayetsya na Sach-u/evo intu’ici-yu
he relies
on Sacha-Acc/his intuition-Acc
“He relies on Sacha/his intuition.”
On the plausible assumption that Locative Case is indeed inherent, licensed by the
locative relation, its appearance in (25) is expected. The fact that Locative is not
assigned in PP-verb constructions (26) is accounted for, given the claim that their P is
not PR, but rather PC, which does not denote a (locative) relation, but just checks the
Case feature of the nominal.24
(ii) As observed in Van Riemsdijk (1998) and mentioned in chapter 2, locative
Ps (in locative contexts) exhibit the so-called bottom-up dependency. More
specifically, the choice of a particular locative P is sometimes determined by its
nominal complement. Thus a picture may seem to be hanging in the air, when
actually it is hanging on the wall. The bottom-up dependency, illustrated for Hebrew
in (27), is absent when the same prepositions occur with PP-verbs (28):
(27)
a. dan sam/maca et
ha-sefer al/*be-šulxan
Dan put/found Acc the-book on/in-table
24
Despite the identical morphological manifestation, namely Accusative, the (structural) Case checking
by V[Acc] and by PC are not intended here to be identical procedures. The checking of the Case feature
of the nominal by PC is a purely formal procedure divorced from any thematic/semantic relation. This is
of course not true with respect to checking of Accusative by V[Acc]. The ability to check Accusative is
tightly connected to the theta-structure of a verb. Thus, although Accusative (and Nominative) is
widely assumed to be structural, it is certainly not dissociated from the thematic structure of the verb
(see Reinhart and Siloni 2003).
59
b. dan sam/maca et
ha-sefer *al/be-megira
Dan put/found Acc the-book on/in-drawer
(28)
a. dan ma’amin *al/be-šulxanot
Dan believes on/in-tables
b. dan somex al/*be-megirot
Dan relies on/in-drawers
Since the bottom-up dependency is associated with the locative relation, the fact that
PP-verbs do not show it indicates that no such relation exists in the discussed
constructions, thereby supporting the proposal that the function of P is PC, rather than
PR.
(iii) A locative PP can be replaced by a locative pronoun such as here/there
(29a) or by a locative wh-phrase such as where (29b). Neither of these options is
grammatical in (30) where the same P-morpheme (in) occurs with a PP-verb:
(29)
a. Dan sleeps in the garden/here.
b. Where does Dan sleep?
(30)
a. Dan believes in love/*here.
b.*Where does Dan believe?
(iv) PP-verb constructions (31a) contrast sharply with locative constructions
(31b) with respect to binding (Hestvik 1991, Reinhart and Reuland 1993). In the latter
a pronoun coindexed with the subject is grammatical, whereas in the former a
reflexive must be used; using a pronoun results in ungrammaticality.
(31)
a. dani somex *al-avi/al acmoi
Dani relies
b. dani sam et
on-him/on himself
ha-kova al-avi/??al acmoi
Dan put Acc the-hat on-him/on himself
Under the approach to Binding developed in Reinhart and Reuland 1993
(“Reflexivity”, henceforth), the obligatoriness of the reflexive and the impossibility of
the pronoun in (31a) indicate that the preposition of PP-verbs is not a predicate. In the
60
theory of P developed in chapter 2 this amounts to identifying this P as PC, rather than
as PR (see chapter 4 for a more extensive discussion of the notion predicate under
“Reflexivity” framework).
To recapitulate, the preposition in PP-verb constructions does not denote the
locative relation (or any relation, for that matter), indicating that it is PC rather than
PR. The function of PC is to check the Case feature of the nominal. Thus, PC does not
contribute to the meaning of a verb, but rather is consistent with (one of) its
meaning(s). In this respect, recall that there are few PP-verbs such as ba’at (‘kicked’),
which realize their internal argument either as a DP or as a PP ((17) repeated below as
(32)).
(32)
a. dan ba’at et
ha-kadur
Dan kicked Acc the-ball
b. dan ba’at ba-kadur
Dan kicked in+the-ball
The view of PC argued for above implies that such verbs are listed twice, that is
ba’at (‘kicked’) in (32a) and ba’at (‘kicked in’) in (32b) are separate lexical entries.
The double listing might seem not very elegant, or even counter-explanatory, as it
implies that there is no systematic connection between the verbal entries. In fact, this
is indeed the case. Although both entries share the core lexical meaning, the relation
between them is not systematic, at least not in the relevant sense (e.g. active-passive;
transitive-unaccusative/middle/reflexive). Furthermore, since the number of the
ambiguous verbs that give rise to the DP/PP alternation is very small (I know of 5
altogether), the double listing cannot be argued to enlarge the lexicon in any
problematic way.
3.3.2 PC is a syntactic head
Until now I have been assuming, without any support, that the prepositions in
PP-verb constructions are syntactic heads that combine with the following DP and
project a PP, as schematicized in (33):25
25
Based on its classification as a functional head (see 2.1), I assume that P merges its complement in
the same fashion as the other functional heads (C, T, D). For another view, see Kayne (1994, 2001,
2002).
61
(33)
V [PP P DP]
This analysis, however, may face some objections. It could be argued that the
construction does not involve an independent syntactic P-head projecting a PP. The Ps
may be viewed as verbal particles attached to the verb forming with it a complex
verbal head, as in (34), or they might be viewed as Case-markers adjoined to the DP,
as in (35) (cf. Rauh 1991):
(34)
[VV-P] DP
(35)
V [DP P-DP]
The plausibility of (34) stems from the assumption that the very occurrence of the Pmorpheme is triggered by the thematic structure of a verb, and even more importantly,
it seems that the choice of a specific P-morpheme is, to some extent, dictated by the
verb. (35) is plausible since the function of P is related to the Case of its DP
complement.
In what follows I will argue for the analysis in (33), in which P is analyzed as an
independent syntactic head projecting a PP. I will address the relation between the
verb and the preposition in 3.3.3.
Let us start with the observation that the P-morphemes under discussion are pied
piped by their complement (36), which is typical of prepositions, but not of verbs
(37b) or verbal particles (37d) (Webelhuth 1992, Horvath 2001):
(36)
a. al mi
hu somex?
on who he relies
“On whom does he rely?”
b. be-mi hu ma’amin?
in-who he believes
“In whom does he believe?”
62
(37)
a. What did he eat in the morning?
b. *Eat what did he in the morning?
c. What did he give up?
d. *Up what did he give?
Furthermore, in languages such as English, where P-stranding is attested, the Pmorphemes occurring with PP-verbs can be stranded, thus again exhibiting the typical
prepositional behavior:
(38)
a. Dan can be relied on.
b. Who did you rely on?
Note that the availability of stranding cannot discriminate between prepositions
and P-particles, as the latter are stranded as well (37c).26
In order to see clearly that PC is not a verbal particle, consider the coordination
possibilities in PP-verb constructions (39), as opposed to those in V-particle
constructions (40):
(39)
a. bart somex al lisa ve-homer
Bart relies on Lisa and-Homer
b. bart somex al lisa ve-al
homer
Bart relies on Lisa and-on Homer
(40)
a. Bart gave up Lisa and Homer.
b.*Bart gave up Lisa and up Homer.
In PP-verb constructions the coordination can be either between DPs (39a) or
between two larger constituents, arguably PPs (39b). In V-particle constructions (40)
only coordination of DPs is possible. The crucial contrast is between the grammatical
(39b) and the ungrammatical (40b). In (40) the P-morpheme up is not an independent
26
If P-stranding is indeed contingent on V-P reanalysis, as proposed in Hornstein and Weinberg
(1981), and if reanalysis applies to syntactic heads, then P-stranding in PP-verb constructions may be
considered as an argument against the analysis of P as a Case-marker (35).
63
syntactic head, but rather part of the verbal one. Therefore up, by itself, does not form
a constituent with the following DP. The absence of such constituent underlies the
ungrammaticality of (40b). On the assumption that the P-morpheme al (’on’) in (39)
is not part of the verbal head, but rather forms a constituent with the following DP, the
grammaticality of (39b) follows.
The constituency of the P DP sequence is further demonstrated in (41), where
the sequence is topicalized:
(41)
al lisa,
bart somex
On Lisa, Bart relies
The P-DP constituency indicates that (34) is untenable (i.e. P is not a verbal
particle). It does not entail, however, that the constituent is necessarily a PP; P in this
sequence can be analyzed as a Case-marker adjoined to the DP, as in (35). In order to
eliminate this possibility, additional evidence is presented below.
Williams (1980) argues that a (secondary) predicate has to be c-commanded by
its subject. Neeleman (1997) observes that secondary predication of the indirect object
in PP-verb constructions is infelicitous (42a), contrasting with secondary predication
of the direct object (42b). In (42b) the depictive AP can be predicated of both the
subject and the direct object, whereas in (42a) it can be predicated only of the subject.
Given the c-command restriction (Williams 1980), this observation is accounted for,
if there is a PP above the relevant DP:
(42)
a. bart hibit
be-lisa šikor/*šikora
Bart looked in-Lisa drunk-ms./*fem.
b. bart ra’a et
lisa šikor/šikora
Bart saw Acc Lisa drunk-ms./fem.
The picture, however, appears to be more complex. Maling (2001) provides
examples where secondary predication of the indirect object (object of P) is possible
((14a,b) in Maling 2001):
(43)
a. The brain surgeon had to operate on the patient wide-awake.
b. The perverted orderly liked to look at female patients nude.
64
Thus, whatever the exact restrictions on secondary predication are, they seem to
be more than just c-command of the secondary predicate by the DP argument.
Therefore the argument based on the impossibility of secondary predication, by itself,
cannot be viewed as conclusive evidence for the existence of a PP (see also note 28
ahead).
Consider, however, PP-extraposition in Dutch (cf. Van Riemsdijk 1998),
mentioned in 2.2.1. In Dutch, PPs extrapose freely (44), while DPs do not ((45a) vs.
(45b)): 27
(44)
a. Ik had niet op zoveel mensen gerekend
I had not on so-many people counted
“I had not counted on so many people.”
b. Ik had niet gerekend op zoveel mensen
I had not counted on so-many people
“I had not counted on so many people.”
(45)
a. Ik had niet zoveel mensen verwacht
I had not so-many people expected
“I had not expected so many people.”
b. *Ik had niet verwacht zoveel mensen
I had not expected so-many people
“I had not expected so many people.”
The contrast between the grammatical (44b) and the ungrammatical (45b) shows
conclusively that the P DP sequence is a PP strongly supporting the analysis in (33),
repeated in (46) for convenience:
27
As shown in Van Riemsdijk (1998), PP-extraposition is attested also with locative/temporal PP
adjuncts (i). The contrast between PPs and DPs holds in this context as well ((ib) vs. (iib)):
(i)
(ii)
a. Hij gaat op zondagochtend altijd golfen
he goes on Sunday-morning always play-golf
b. Hij gaat altijd golfen op zondagochtend
he goes always play-golf on Sunday-morning
a. Hij gaat de hele dag golfen
he goes the whole day play-golf
b. *Hij gaat golfen de hele dag
he goes play-golf the whole day
65
(46)
V [PP P DP]
A potential weakness of the PP-extraposition argument lies in the fact that Ps in
Dutch are not affixal, as opposed to Hebrew, where phonologically small Ps can be
affixal (see chapters 4 and 5 for the analysis of the Hebrew preposition le- (‘to’)).
Thus, as far as Hebrew PP-verbs are concerned, the PP-extraposition test may seem
not convincing enough, and an independent test that distinguishes between a DP and a
PP in Hebrew is needed in order to establish the category of the P DP sequence.
Fortunately, such a test exists.
As noted in Landau (1994), only conjoined DPs allow either one adjectival
modifier or two modifiers, as shown in (47). Conjoined PPs allow only the latter, as
shown in (48). Most significantly, modification of conjoined P DP sequences with one
modifier is ungrammatical in PP-verb construction (49a):
(47) a. dan pagaš et ha-yeled ha-xadaš
ve-et
ha-yalda ha-xadaša
Dan met Acc the-boy the-new-sg.ms. and-Acc the-girl the-new-sg.fem.
b. dan pagaš et ha-yeled ve-et
ha-yalda ha-xadašim
Dan met Acc the-boy and-Acc the-girl the-new-pl.
(48) *dan kiven et ha-ekdax
la-em
ve-le-bna
ha-mefuxadim
Dan pointed Acc the-gun to+the-mother and-to-son+her the-frightened-pl.
(49) a. *dan somex rak al ha-menahel ve-al
ha-axayot ha-menusim
Dan relies only on the-director and-on the-nurses the-experienced-pl.
b. dan somex rak al ha-menahel ha-menuse ve-al ha-axayot ha-menusot
Dan relies only on the-director the-experienced and-on the-nurses the-experienced
“Dan relies only on the experienced director and the experienced nurses.”
66
The ungrammaticality of (49a) indicates that the P DP sequence is indeed a PP
in Hebrew as well as in Dutch, supporting further the analysis of this sequence in
(46).28
Summarizing the above, PC is a Case-checking device motivated by the
(thematic) properties of the verb. A verb with an underspecified internal theta-cluster
does not carry the [Acc], and therefore it selects in the lexicon a semantically
appropriate small P (see ahead), which checks the Case of the nominal. To make this
concrete, in what follows I illustrate the lexical marking and derivation of a PP-verb.
The notation used in the illustration is given in (50):
(50)
[Case] = the uninterpretable Case-feature of a nominal
[-φ] = uninterpretable φ-features
(For completeness, I specify the EPP feature on T)
The Lexicon marking of a regular transitive verb and of a PP-verb is
schematicized in (51) and (52). It is followed by a concrete example of the Hebrew
PP-verb ma’amin (‘believes’) in (53).
Lexicon marking:
(51)
V:
θ
θ
[+m+c] [-c-m]
Æ
θ1
θ2
[Acc]
[+m+c] [-c-m]
28
Once the presence of a PP in PP-verb constructions has been established, the following should be
mentioned. It has been noted that PPs seem to be transparent for c-command within (cf. Pesetsky
1995) (i). More specifically, the pronoun embedded in the PPs is assumed to c-command the Rexpression in the adjunct, inducing Condition C violation (Chomsky 1981, but see Reinhart 1983).
Note that unlike (ia), the preposition in (ib) specifies the locative relation, and therefore it is not PC but
rather PR (the relevant example is due to Idan Landau p.c.):
(i)
a. *samaxti ale-hai ad ha-ne’um šel rinai
[I] relied on-her until the-speech of Rina
b. *dan amad meaxor-avi ad ha-ne’um šel yosii
Dan stood behind-him until the-speech of Yosi
Even though the described phenomenon does not seem to follow automatically from the theory of P
developed in the study, it is consistent with the uniform classification of P, argued for here. At this
stage I can only speculate that the phenomenon should be attributed to the functional classification of
P. Further research is necessary in order to establish this speculation. (For a radically different account
of the phenomenon see Pesetsky 1995).
67
PP-V: θ
(52)
θ
θ1
Æ
[+m+c] [-m]/[-c]
(53)
[+m+c]
θ2 [PC[–φ]]
[-m]/[-c]
dan ma’amin be-rina
Dan believes in-Rina
Lexicon: ma’aminV: θ
θ Æ
[+m-c] [-m]29
θ
θ2 [Pc be-[–φ]]
[+m-c] [-m]
Numeration:
{T[EPP, [-φ], ma’aminV θ [+m-c] θ2 [-m] be-P[-φ], danN[Case ], rinaN[Case]}
CS:
[TP[DP dan] [T’ T [VP ma’amin [PP be- [DP rina]]]]]
θ [+m-c]
θ2 [-m]
3.3.3 The P-morpheme and the PP-verb
The variety of prepositions realizing PC in PP-verb constructions may seem
inconsistent with the Case-checking function argued for PC in 3.3.1. In other words, if
the function of P is to check the Case feature of a DP, why is it done by a variety of
small prepositions, rather than by a single one? Moreover, given the variety, why is
the identity of the P-morpheme not fully predictable in a given language and across
languages? In what follows I will address both questions briefly.
On the Underspecification hypothesis (19), the existence of the preposition in a
numeration is triggered by the theta-structure of the (PP)-verb (i.e. by an
underspecified internal theta-role). Thus, it is not surprising that the verb selects the
most appropriate preposition for the theta-role assigned to the DP. For instance, a PPverb like azar (‘helped’) selects the preposition le- (‘to’), which is canonically
associated with Recipient interpretation, rather than me- (‘from’), which is associated
with Source interpretation.30’ 31
29
I will assume here without any discussion that the internal cluster of ma’amin (‘believe’) is [-m]
(rather than [-c]). I will discuss the interpretation of the theta-features and of the underspecified thetaclusters in the next section (3.4).
30
Note that I do not view the P as the filler of the unspecified thematic feature in the underspecified
theta-cluster of a verb. See Ten Have, Schippers, Van Steenbergen and Vlasveld (2003) for a somewhat
different view of the relation between the P and the interpretation of the underspecified cluster.
68
As for the alleged arbitrariness of the preposition (within a language and across
languages), consider the following. Recall that the set of prepositions which realize PC
is limited and consists of prepositions referred to descriptively as small Ps. Only these
can be associated with uninterpretable φ-features enabling them to check the Case
feature of a DP (see 2.3.1). Given this, the particular preposition selected by the verb
(in a given language) will be at best the most suitable one. Since the preposition is
only ‘the most suitable’, it is not fully predictable.
In addition, the group of small Ps varies from language to language in several
ways which are mentioned below. These differences are the main source for the
attested variation across languages.
(i) A particular P-morpheme is small in one language, but big in another. In
Russian, for instance, u (locative ‘with’ /‘at’) is small. The meanings of u are divided
in Hebrew between a small P le- (‘to’/‘at’) and a big P ecel (‘with’/‘at’). The latter
does not participate in the Hebrew PP-verb constructions.
(ii) A certain P-morpheme does not exist in a given language, and therefore
another, less appropriate small P is used. The English preposition at does not exist in
Hebrew, French or Russian. It is replaced in Hebrew by be- (‘in’) or al (‘on’), in
Russian by v (‘in’) or na (‘on’), and in French by à (‘to’/’at’) or sur (‘on’).
(iii) A single P-morpheme in one language covers several semantic fields, each
of which is covered by a separate P-morpheme in another language. For instance,
French à is both Dative/Directional (‘to’), and Locative (‘at’/‘in’).
Given the above, the attested degree of arbitrariness regarding the choice of a Pmorpheme across languages is not surprising, and actually it is smaller than is usually
assumed.
The selection of the verb for the semantically appropriate small preposition is
directly relevant for the licensing of the PP at LF.
31
I draw a distinction between the prepositions occurring in PP-verb constructions and Ps such as of in
English or šel in Hebrew (‘of’), which occur in nominal contexts like the destruction of the city
(Chomsky 1986). The occurrence of the latter is not triggered by the thematic properties of the nominal
head.
69
3.3.3.1 The licensing of the PP at LF: Full Interpretation (FI) requires that every
XP must have an interpretation at LF (C-I interface) in order to be licensed (Chomsky
2000, 2001). The question arises how the PPC is licensed?32
Recall first, that this PP is not an argument of the verb, rather the DP is. Thus,
arguably, it is not licensed thematically. Second, the function of PC is not semantic,
but rather formal, Case-related. Thus the PP seems to have a status of an Agr(eement)
projection, which arguably is not present at LF (Chomsky 2001). To reconcile the
noted discrepancy, I propose the following. Although PC is not a semantic function,
this does not necessarily mean that the P-morphemes realizing PC have no semantic
content (see the above discussion). After all, the variation within the group of Pmorphemes (e.g. depend on vs. believe in vs. look at) cannot be based on anything but
their semantic content (or its residue). This suffices to license the PP at LF.
To summarize this section: A two-place verb with an underspecified internal
cluster is not marked with [Acc]. Therefore the verb itself cannot check the Case
feature of its DP argument. The verb is associated with PC realized by a (semantically
appropriate) small P. Such P has an uninterpretable set of φ-features which enter
Agree with the φ-set of the DP, checking and deleting the Case feature of the DP.
Thus, the occurrence of P in PP-verb constructions, though eventually Case-related, is
thematically motivated. The semantic content of the prepositions realizing PC licenses
its projection at LF.
This concludes the analysis of PP-verb constructions. In what follows I will
discuss the distinction between the underspecified theta-clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones, thereby establishing the Underspecification
hypothesis (19). I will also specify which PP-verbs assign a [-m] role and which a [-c]
role. As already mentioned, whether a certain verb has a [-m] cluster or a [-c] one has
no direct bearing on the proposed analysis. Both are predicted to be PP-verbs.
However, the distinction between [-m] PP-verbs and [-c] PP-verbs, apart from being
interesting on its own, will turn out to be significant for an additional aspect of the
diversity among members of the PP-verb group across languages.
32
The same question is raised in Neeleman (1997), where P is viewed as a lexical category. Neeleman
assumes that the PP, although a projection of a lexical category, is not licensed by theta-assignment or
syntactic selection (selection for an XP). Consequently, he introduces idiomatic selection (selection for
a particular P-morpheme), and argues that this kind of selection, in addition to the traditional syntactic
selection, prevents violation of Full Interpretation (FI) by the PP in PP-verb constructions.
70
3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction
The goal of this section is to distinguish between the PP-verbs that assign a [-c]
role and those which assign a [-m] role to their internal argument. In order to do so, I
will first discuss the interpretation of theta-features in general (Reinhart 2000, 2001),
and of the underspecified roles [-m] and [-c] in particular. This will provide the
common ground for the thematic analyses of PP-verbs. I will then present the [-c] and
[-m] groups of Hebrew PP-verbs, and support the distinction between the
underspecified roles [-c], [-m] themselves, and between them and the fully specified
ones (i.e. [+/-m -c], [-m +/-c]).33
3.4.1 The interpretation of theta-features
The discussion of the meaning of the theta-features in Reinhart (2000) is based
on the study of the perception of relations between events in narrative in Shen 1985.
Shen (1985) argues that there are three causal relations that humans use in order to
organize their perception of events:
The relation cause - given two events, the first is perceived as a sufficient and
necessary condition for the second to occur: “The glass fell on the floor and broke”.
The falling of the glass is perceived as a sufficient condition for its breaking, namely
it is perceived as the cause of its breaking.
The relation enable - given two events, the first is perceived as a necessary (but
not sufficient) condition for the second to occur: “Max entered the pool, and then he
drowned”. It is necessary to enter the pool in order to drown there (in the pool).
Entering the pool, however, is not a sufficient condition (not the cause) for drowning
in the pool.
The relation motivate holds when either enable or cause hold, and in addition a
mental state is involved in one of the events. In other words, motivate does not
determine the causal status of the event, but rather specifies a given event as
associated with mental state. Thus compare (54a) and (54b):
33
See Marelj (2002, 2004), where a formal approach to the interpretation of the underspecified thetaclusters is elaborated.
71
(54) a. “Dan was bored [cause], so he decided to see a film.”
b. “Nili watched a black-and-white film, and then she got bored [enable].”
In (54a) motivate is associated with the cause event, whereas in (54b) with the
enable event.34
As is clear from the above examples, each event in a narrative is expressed by a
full sentence. The question of interest for the evolution of the Theta System is the
following: How are these relations coded in the outputs of the CS, namely in a single
sentence?
Reinhart (2000) proposes that a /+c feature is associated with a role perceived as
a sufficient condition (cause). The range of /+c roles, [+c+m], [+c-m], [+c], is
exemplified in (55):
(55)
a. ha-se’ara [+c] harsa
et
ha-sira[-c-m]
the-storm destroyed Acc the-boat
b. dina[+c+m] kilfa
Dina
ha-tapu’ax[-c-m]
peeled Acc the-apple
c. ha-sakin[+c-m] kilef
the-knife
et
et ha-tapu’ax[-c-m]
peeled Acc the-apple
The feature /+m is associated with some mental state of the participant/s.
Similarly to the relation motivate it does not determine the causal status of the
argument it is associated with. Thus in (55b) /+m is part of the [+c+m] theta-role
(Agent), namely one of the roles perceived as cause, whereas in (56) it is part of
[-c+m] role:
(56)
dvar-av
šel dan[+c] he’elivu et
words-his of Dan
rina[-c+m]
insulted Acc Rina
“Dan’s words insulted Rina.”
Enable does not correspond to any particular feature, but rather is typically
associated with internal arguments. In other words, any selected argument can be
34
It is worth noting that as opposed to causality which seems to be rooted in the human conceptual
structure, independently of language, the status of motivate is less fundamental.
72
viewed as necessary conditions for the event. As will be shown in the following
section, the range of enable roles exceeds those featuring in the above examples.
3.4.2 Identification of [-m] and [-c] roles
The interpretation of the fully specified clusters is relatively stable and their
association with an argument is easily determined. The underspecified (unary)
clusters have a greater freedom of interpretation, as the non-specified feature is
consistent with either specification, giving rise to various interpretations (to be
discussed below). Therefore their association with an argument may seem to be less
straightforward. In this respect, Reinhart points out that, as far as the internal unary
clusters (i.e. [-m] (Subject Matter) and [-c] (Goal)) are concerned, the crucial question
in identifying the theta-role of an argument is whether it can serve as a cause.35 This is
stated in (57):
(57) [-m]/[-c] Identification
An argument is [-m], if it can be perceived also as a cause, and it is [-c] if it cannot be
interpreted as such.
Given (57), the [-m]/[-c] distinction is relatively clear.36 Consider (58):
(58)
a. lisa hitxarta al ma’ase-ha
Lisa regretted on deeds-her
“Lisa regretted her deeds.”
b. bart halam ba-kir
Bart stroke in+the-wall
“Bart stroke the wall.”
The internal argument of the verb hitxarta (‘regretted’) in (58a), ma’ase-ha (‘her
deeds’), can be interpreted as the argument causing the event of ‘regret’. Therefore,
the identification of this argument as [-m] is rather straightforward. The internal
35
See also Pesetsky (1995), where a Subject Matter/Target role, represented here as [-m], is assumed to
be potentially a cause.
36
There are some problematic cases, one of them is discussed in Appendix A (e.g. xašad ‘suspected’)).
73
argument of halam (‘stroke’) (58b) clearly does not have such an interpretation, and
therefore it is natural to conclude that it is a [-c] argument.37
What is less clear is the distinction between the unary clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones (i.e. between [-c] and [-c-m]/[-c+m], or between
[-m] and [-c-m]/[+c-m]). In other words, why is the internal argument of ‘regret’, for
instance, claimed to realize a [-m] rather than a [-c-m] role?
Note that establishing the distinction between the unary clusters and the
corresponding fully specified ones is necessary in order to maintain the
Underspecification hypothesis (19) that underlies the phenomenon of PP-verbs (i.e.
the internal role of PP-verbs is underspecified). This is the matter I turn to next.
In the identification of the theta-roles, we use our linguistic intuition, which in
many cases is sufficient. Thus we distinguish easily between a [-c+m] (Experiencer)
and a [-c-m] (Theme) roles, as only the former entails a mental state in the bearer of
the role. However, the identification of the unary clusters, which are often consistent
with the interpretation of the corresponding fully specified ones, is not that obvious.
There are no ready available diagnostics which distinguish the unary [-c] cluster from
the corresponding fully specified ones [-c+m]/[-c-m] (the proto-Patient entailments in
Dowty (1991), which I will use, is a helpful exception). In what follows I will use
different strategies to show that the roles are indeed different. My main strategy is
based on the consistency of the unary clusters with additional interpretations (e.g. a
[-c] role is consistent with [-c+m] (Experiencer) interpretation, a [-m] role is
consistent with [+c-m] (Instrument) interpretation), as opposed to the nonflexible
interpretation of the fully specified clusters. 38
3.4.3 PP-verbs assigning a [-c] role
A sample of PP-verbs I have classified as assigning [-c] is given in (59) (the
verbs are divided into sub-groups, for convenience, as in 3.1.3):39
37
As can be seen from the English glosses of the Hebrew PP-verbs in (58), the corresponding verbs in
English are not PP-verbs. I address the issue in section 3.5.
38
I use the term ‘strategies’ rather than ‘tests’, since although applicable to many PP-verbs, none of
them is applicable to all of them. An underspecified theta-role can have various interpretations (e.g.
[-c] can be interpreted as an Experiencer, Recipient, Benefactive, Possessor, spatial/non-spatial Goal).
Consequently, a test for an Experiencer interpretation, for instance, will be applicable only to verbs
whose [-c] theta-role has this interpretation (e.g. iyem ‘threatened’, but not halam ‘stroke’).
39
It appears that the majority of Hebrew PP-verbs on my list are [-c] PP-verbs rather than [-m] PPverbs. Whether this, by itself, is a significant observation is not important for the present discussion.
74
(59) [–c] PP-verbs
Physical contact verbs: xavat be-’ (‘hit’), ba’at be- (‘kicked’), naga be- (‘touched’),
halam/hika be- (‘beat’/’hit’).
Abstract contact verbs: tamax be- (‘supported’), nazaf be- (‘scolded’), hifcir be(‘pleaded with’), tipel be- (‘dealt with’), xibel be- (‘sabotaged’, ‘tempered with’), alav
be- (‘hurt’), paga be- (‘hit’, ‘hurt’, ‘damaged’), bagad be- (‘betrayed’), šita be([made] ‘fool of’), hišpi’a al (‘influenced’), iyem al (‘threatened’), pakad al
(‘ordered’), asar al (‘forbid’).
Verbs of looking: hibit/histakel be- (‘looked/glanced at’),40 hivxin be- (‘noticed’),
hitbonen be- (‘inspected’, ‘observed’), cafa be- (‘watched’), baha be- (‘glared at’).
As stated in (57), a [-c] (Goal) role differs from the [-m] role in that it is
associated with an argument that cannot be interpreted as the cause of the eventuality.
Thus, for any verb from the group in (59), it is clear that the relation its internal
argument bears to the event expressed by the verb is anything but cause. This,
however, is not enough to establish that the role of this argument is necessarily [-c],
rather than the fully specified [-c-m] (Theme) or [-c+m] (Experiencer) roles.
I will start with the distinction between [-c] (Goal) and [-c+m] (Experiencer)
theta-roles, focusing on PP-verbs for which the Experiencer interpretation of the
internal argument is available.
3.4.3.1 [-c] vs. [-c+m]: Consider the following pair of verbs which have similar
meanings: hifxid (‘frightened’), a regular transitive verb (taking an Accusative DP
argument) (60), and iyem (‘threatened’), classified here as a [-c] PP-verb (61).41 The
question is what is the difference between the internal theta-roles assigned by each of
the verbs.
40
The verbs hibit and histakel (‘looked’) as well as the verb yara (‘shot’) differ in some respects from
the majority of PP-verbs. They are discussed in Appendix A.
41
That the Experiencer argument of hifxid (‘frightened’) is an Accusative DP in many languages is not
controversial. However, as shown in Landau (2002) for a wide range of languages, this argument
behaves very differently from an Accusative argument of a non-psych verb. Landau (2002) suggests
that despite its Accusative Case, this argument is introduced by a (phonetically null) P. I leave the
consequences of Landau’s proposal unexplored here.
75
(60)
dan hifxid
et rut
Dan frightened Acc Ruth
(61)
dan iyem
al rut
Dan threatened on Ruth
The internal role assigned to rut by hifxid in (60) is easy to identify as [-c+m]
(Experiencer). It has the feature /-c since rut is not causing the ‘fright’, but rather feels
it, and it has the feature /+m since rut’s mental state is clearly relevant.
Let us turn now to iyem (‘threatened’). The internal role assigned by iyem is
surely specified as /-c since the argument bearing this role is not causing the ‘threat’.
Crucially, however, whether a mental state should be associated with the relevant
argument or not (/+m or /-m, respectively) is undetermined.
Consider first the contrast in (62):
(62)
a. *ha-macav ha-kalkali
the-situation the-economic
b. ha-macav
ha-kalkali
the-situation the-economic
hifxid
et atid
ha-medina
frightened Acc future the-country
iyem
al atid ha-medina
threatened on future the-country
“The economic situation threatened the future of the country.”
That the Experiencer theta-role cannot be realized by a DP projected from a nonhuman N is intuitively clear. This intuition is stated explicitly in the Theta System:
/+m feature entails [+human] (or [+animate]). This accounts for the ungrammaticality
of (62a). The grammaticality of (62b) supports the assumption that the internal thetarole assigned by iyem (‘threatened’) is [-c] rather than [-c+m]. The lack of /+m
specification in the internal cluster of iyem (‘threatened’) allows a non-human DP atid
ha-medina (‘future of the country’) to realize this role.
A [-c] role (Goal), although consistent with the Experiencer interpretation, does
not have to be interpreted as such. It can be interpreted simply as Goal. Thus in (61)
the argument realizing [-c], namely rut, is consistent with Experiencer interpretation if
we perceive rut as being emotionally affected by the threats. However, rut can be
equally viewed as just the recipient of the threats, the goal of threatening. In contrast,
the argument realizing the fully specified [-c+m] role (Experiencer) in (60) can be
76
interpreted only as undergoing an emotional episode (i.e. fear). The following pair
(suggested by Julia Horvath and Idan Landau p.c.) illustrates clearly the noted
difference between the two roles:
(63)
#hu hifxid et rut, aval hi lo hirgiša paxad
He frightened Ruth, but she did not feel fear.
(64)
hu iyem al rut, aval hi lo hirgiša me’uyemet
He threatened Ruth, but she did not feel threatened.
(63) is a contradiction, as the verb hifxid (‘frightened’) entails the mental state
(of fear) of its internal argument. In other words, the internal argument of hifxid has
the feature /+m. Negating the entailment results in a contradiction. (64) is not a
contradiction indicating clearly that the verb iyem (‘threatened’) does not entail any
mental state for its internal argument. More specifically, (64) is not a contradiction,
since the negated conjunct can be interpreted as ‘His threats didn’t reach Ruth’, where
rut is interpreted as the recipient (Goal) of the threats.
The following examples support further the distinction between the [-c] (Goal)
and [-c+m] (Experiencer) theta-roles. The Recipient interpretation of the [-c]
argument is made explicit using the sequence receive + nominalization of the relevant
[-c] verb. This is illustrated in (65b) for iyem (‘threatened’) and in (66) for another
[-c] verb tamax (‘supported’):42
(65)
a. dan iyem
al rut
Dan threatened on Ruth
b. rut
kibla
iyumim mi-dan
Ruth received threats from-Dan
(66)
a. dan tamax
be- rut
Dan supported in-Ruth
42
There are, of course, additional [-c] verbs which have similar paraphrases: alav be- (insulted
in’)/safga elbonot me- (‘got insults from’), azar le- (‘helped to’)/kibla ezra me- (‘received help from’).
77
b. rut
kibla
tmixa
mi-dan
Ruth received support from-Dan
Note that using the same kind of sequence is impossible with [-c+m] assigning verbs
such as hifxid (‘frightened’) or hix’is (‘angered’):
(67)
a. dan hifxid/hix’is
et rut
Dan frightened/angered Acc Ruth
b. *rut kibla
hafxadot/ke’asim mi-dan
Ruth received frights/angers
from-Dan
An additional way to highlight the Goal-Recipient interpretation of [-c] is
exemplified in (68)-(70). Verbs selecting a [-c] argument can occasionally be
paraphrased by a motion/transfer verb followed by a DP:
(68)
a. dan iyem
al rina
Dan threatened on Rina
b. dan [šalax iyumim] le-rina
Dan sent threats
(69)
a. dan alav
to-Rina
be-rina43
Dan insulted in-Rina
b. dan [heti’ax elbonot] be-rina
Dan threw insults
(70)
a. dan hibit
in-Rina
be-rina
Dan looked in-Rina
43
alav be- (‘insulted in’) is a somewhat archaic verb, used mainly in high register and written Hebrew.
In colloquial Hebrew it is replaced by he’eliv, which is not a PP-verb, it assigns Accusative to its
internal argument. It is not implausible that the preposition be- with alav is a historical relic. However,
there are reasons to doubt this. For one, unlike he’eliv which can occur in an expletive subject
construction (ia), alav cannot (ib). I leave this intriguing fact for future research:
(i)
a. ze he’eliv oti še-rut
ixra
it insulted me that-Ruth [was] late
b. *ze alav
bi
še-rut
ixra
it insulted in+me that-Ruth [was] late
“It insulted me that Ruth was late.”
78
b. dan [he’if mabat] be-rina
Dan threw a look in-Rina
Importantly, such paraphrases with verbs assigning an Experiencer theta-role are
ungrammatical:44
(71)
a. dan hifxid/hix’is
et rina
Dan frightened/angered Acc Rina
b. *dan šalax hafxadot/ke’asim le-rina
Dan sent frights/angers
to-Rina
In sum, the [-c] role, although often consistent with an Experiencer
interpretation, is distinct from the Experiencer ([-c+m]) theta-role.
3.4.3.2 [-c] vs. [-c-m]: The following pair of sentences exemplifies the [-c]
(Goal)/[-c-m] (Theme) distinction. The verbs in (72) are canonical transitive verbs:
haras/risek (‘destroyed’/‘crushed’) in (72a) are assumed to assign the Theme/Patient
role to their object; the theta-role of the internal argument in (72b) assigned by
hafax/he’if (‘turned over’/‘threw’) is referred to as an affected Theme.45 The verbs in
(73) are the verbs classified here as [-c] verbs (halam/xavat, ‘hit’/‘stroke’):
(72)
a. ha-gal
haras/risek
et
ha-sfina
the-wave destroyed/crushed Acc the-ship
b. ha-gal
hafax/he’if
et ha-sfina
the-wave turned over/threw Acc the-ship
(73)
ha-gal halam/xavat ba-sfina
the-wave hit/stroke
44
in+the-ship
Experiencer verbs can be paraphrased as [V+DP]. For instance, dan nata paxad be-rina (‘Dan
planted fear in Rina’). Note, however, that the verb in the paraphrase is not a verb of motion/transfer.
Consequently, the Experiencer argument is interpreted as a (metaphoric) location, rather than as a
Recipient (see Landau 2002 for the locative account of Experiencer verbs).
45
I am not distinguishing between Theme and Patient theta-roles. To my best knowledge, it has never
been established that this distinction is indeed motivated. As for the ‘affected’/‘non affected’ Theme
distinction, note that while Themes can be affected or non-affected, the object of P is never affected
(see also Neeleman 1997, fn. 10).
79
As already mentioned, it is uncontroversial that the internal theta-role of the verb
haras/risek (‘destroyed’/crushed) is Theme ([-c-m]). The question is why the internal
theta-role of the verbs in (73) is any different.
Following Dowty (1991), as opposed to the internal argument of haras/risek
(‘destroyed’/‘crushed’) or hafax/he’if (‘turned over’/‘threw’), the internal argument of
halam/xavat (‘hit/stroke’) does not have the ‘causally affected by another participant’
entailment. Rather, it specifies the goal of the motional activity denoted by halam
(‘hit’) (the contact point). It is, therefore, only natural to view the thematic relation of
this argument to the verb as that of Goal ([-c]), rather than Theme ([-c-m]).
The distinction between the [-c] and the [-c-m] roles is exemplified nicely by a
small group of verbs already mentioned in 3.1.2, which realize their internal argument
either as a DP or as a PP, while their basic lexical meaning remains unchanged (see
the English glosses). Consider (74):
(74)
a. dan ba’at ba-even[-c]/ kir[-c] (*le-yosi)
Dan kicked in+the-stone/wall to-Yosi
b. dan ba’at
et ha-even[-c-m] /*ha-kir[-c-m] (le-yosi)
Dan kicked Acc the-stone/wall
to-Yosi
The compatibility of ha-kir (‘the wall’) with the verb ba’at (‘kicked’) in (74a)
indicates that ba’at (‘kicked’) in (74a) does not entail the movement of its object as
the result of the event it denotes. The opposite holds in (74b). The ungrammaticality
of the (unmovable) DP ha-kir (‘the wall’) highlights the entailment associated with
(74b) that the object of the verb has moved as the result of the event it denotes. Note
that the described contrast between (74a) and (74b) is fully consistent with the
impossibility/possibility to add the Goal argument le-yosi (‘to Yosi’).
A similar kind of contrast is exemplified in (75) with the verb hika
(‘hit’/‘beat’). The object of hika (‘hit’) in (75a) can be any DP, since in this sense hika
(‘hit’) means ‘touch as the result of movement’. Therefore, in (75a) both ha-yeled
(‘the boy’) and ha-xalon (‘the window’) are possible, as they realize the goal of
‘hitting’. In (75b) hika (‘beat’) denotes a conscious act of violence intended to cause
pain. Therefore, the internal argument of hika in this meaning can be realized only by
80
a [+animate] DP. Consequently, ha-xalon (‘the window’) is completely inappropriate,
whereas ha-yeled (‘the boy’), being [+animate], is fine.
(75)
a. dan hika ba-yeled[-c]/xalon[-c]
Dan hit in+the-boy/window
b. dan hika et
ha-yeled[-c-m]/*ha-xalon[-c-m]
Dan beat Acc the-boy/the-window
In light of the above, the interpretive differences between (74a) and (75a) on the
one hand, and (74b) and (75b) on the other hand, are of the same nature. As opposed
to the internal arguments in (74b) and (75b), there is no affectedness entailment
associated with the internal arguments in (74a) and (75a) (Dowty 1991). The latter
denote the goal of motion. Therefore we may conclude that ba’at (‘kicked’) in (74a)
and ‘hika’ (‘hit’) in (75a) select a [-c] Goal argument, while ‘ba’at’ (‘kicked’) in
(74b) and ‘hika’ (‘beat’) in (75b) select a [-m-c] Patient/Theme argument.
In the next section I will introduce the group of [-m]-assigning Hebrew PPverbs, and will argue for the [-m]/[-c-m], [+c-m] distinction.
3.4.4 PP-verbs assigning a [-m] role
The group of PP-verbs classified here as [-m] PP-verbs is given in (76). As already
mentioned, this group is substantially smaller than that of [-c] PP-verbs.
(76) [-m] PP-verbs
A sample of PP-verbs I have classified as assigning [-m] includes verbs from the
following (informal) groups:
(Subject) Experiencer verbs in hitpa’el template: hit’anyen be- ([was] ‘interested
in’), hitkaša be- ([had] ‘difficulties with’), hitbayeš be- ([was] ‘ashamed of’), histapek
be- ([was] ‘satisfied with’), hitxaret al (‘regretted’), hit’abel al (‘mourned’), hit’akeš
al (‘insisted on’).
Some verbs from the (dis)belief group: he’emin be- (‘believe in’), samax al (‘relied
on’), nitla be- (‘depended on’).
81
Since the [-m] role is not so familiar, I will first discuss the basic motivation to
analyze these verbs as [-m] assigning verbs. I will then show that the internal role
assigned by these verbs is indeed distinct from both [-c-m] and [+c-m] roles.
3.4.4.1 Basic motivation: The group of Subject Experiencer hitpa’el verbs
consists of verbs such as mit’anyen be- ([is] ‘interested in’]), which have a causative
alternate (me’anyen ‘causes interest’).46 This is exemplified below in (77). The
availability of the causative alternate (77a) highlights the characteristic of the [-m]
role to be perceived as cause. Therefore these verbs are the most straightforward
candidates for assigning a [-m] role.47
(77)
a. balšanut[-m] me’anyenet et dan
Linguistics
b. dan
interests
Acc Dan
mit’anyen be-balšanut[-m]
Dan [is] interested in-linguistics
Let us now consider a verb such as hitxaret (al) (‘regretted’) (78a), which does
not have a causative alternate (78b), and examine whether it too can be classified as a
[-m] verb.
(78)
a. dan hitxaret al ma’asav
Dan regretted on deeds-his
“Dan regretted his deeds.”
b. *ma’asav
hixritu/xirtu et dan
deeds-his [caused] regret
Acc Dan
Intended meaning: His deeds caused Dan regret
46
See Reinhart (2000, 2001), where it is argued that the hitpa’el entry is derived from the transitive
entry by a lexical operation which reduces the external [+c] theta-role.
47
These verbs probably belong to the group of Object Experiencer verbs such as do’eg (‘worries’),
discussed in Reinhart 2001, for which the [-m] role is motivated. The difference between verbs such as
hit’anyen (‘was interested’), hitkaša (‘had difficulty’), which are viewed here as core PP-verbs, and
verbs such as worry is that the [-m] role of the former is obligatory (e.g. dan hit’anyen *(be-balšanut),
‘Dan was interested *(in linguistics)’), whereas this role is optional with the latter (e.g. dan do’eg (livri’uto), ‘Dan worries (about his health’)).
82
The meaning of (78a) is something like: ‘Dan felt bad, because of some things
that he did, and he would rather not do them, or do them differently’. Focusing on the
internal argument ma’asav (‘his deeds’), it is clear that the specification of /m in the
theta-cluster it realizes is negative, namely /-m. Further, the DP ma’asav (‘his deeds’)
can be perceived as the necessary condition for Dan’s emotion (i.e. regret), namely as
the Theme or the Subject Matter of his regret (the value of /c is underspecified,
interpreted as /-). The /-c interpretation of ma’asav (‘his deeds’) is highlighted in (79),
where an external cause (dina) occurs in a separate clause:
(79)
dina garma le-dan lehitxaret al ma’asav
Dina caused to-Dan to+regret on his deeds
“Dina caused Dan to regret his deeds.”
Note, however, that in absence of an external cause (e.g. dina in (79)), it is
ma’asav (‘his deeds’) itself which can be perceived as the direct cause of the ‘regret’,
indicating that the value of /c can be interpreted as /+ (Cause interpretation). Recall
that compatibility with several interpretations arises when no specification for one of
the features is supplied. If we assume that the theta-role assigned by hitxaret
(‘regretted’) to ma’asav (‘his deeds’) is [-m ±c], the observation that ma’asav (‘his
deeds’) can be interpreted as Cause will follow.48
Given the above, it is plausible to identify the internal theta-role of the verbs in
(76), including those which do not have an overt causative alternate, as [-m]. I now set
up to establish that this must be its feature composition.
The possibility to interpret the unspecified /c of the [-m] cluster as /+c may serve
as a distinction of [-m] from the [-c-m] (Theme) role, but not from the [+c-m]
(Instrument) role. Thus, my strategy will be different regarding the [-m]/[-c-m]
distinction and the [-m]/[+c-m] distinction.
3.4.4.2 [-m] vs. [+c-m]: As observed in Reinhart (2000) and Reinhart and Siloni
(2003), in order to be realized syntactically, an Instrument ([+c-m]) requires the
presence of either an explicit Agent ([+c+m]) or an implicit argument interpretable as
an Agent (e.g. [+c]). This is illustrated in (80) and (81). Now, the external argument
48
Additional [-m] PP-verbs which do not have a causative counterpart, such as ma’amin be- (‘believes
in’) and somex al (‘relies on’) are discussed in 3.4.4.3.
83
of the [-m] PP-verbs (76) is not an Agent ([+c+m]), but rather an Experiencer [-c+m]
(or [+m], see Reinhart 2000, 2001).49
(80)
Dan[+c] /[+c+m] broke/repaired the jar with the hammer[+c-m].
(81)
*I [-c+m] loved him with my both hands[+c-m].50
In Hebrew, Instrumental phrases are introduced by the preposition be- (lit. ‘in’,
meaning ‘with’). This is exemplified in (82). (83)-(85) show that it is completely
impossible to use be- in order to force the instrumental interpretation of the internal
argument of the discussed [-m] PP-verbs.
(82)
xataxti et ha-uga
be-sakin
[I] cut Acc the-cake in-knife
“I cut the cake with a knife.”
(83)
a. hitxarateti al ma’as-ay
[I] regretted on my deeds
“I regretted my deeds.”
b. *hitxarateti be-ma’as-ay
[I] regretted in-my deeds
Intended meaning: I regretted with my deeds.
(84)
a. samaxti al lisa
[I] relied on Lisa
b. *samaxti be-lisa
[I] relied in-Lisa
Intended meaning: I relied with Lisa.
49
I have no explanation for the mentioned interesting fact that the external role of the [-m] PP-verbs is
not [+c+m] (Agent). Actually, it seems to be part of a more general phenomenon, noted by Tali Siloni
(p.c.). It appears that verbs assigning a [-m] role are never Agent assigning verbs.
50
Note that a sentence like I loved her with all my heart should not be viewed as a counterexample.
The PP headed by with functions here as an idiomatic manner adverbial, rather than an Instrument. An
Instrument PP is paraphrasable by ‘using DP’, which is clearly inappropriate for the mentioned
example: #I loved her using all my heart.
84
(85)
a. he’emanti
be-bart
[I] believed in-Bart
b. he’emanti be-(*ezrat) bart51
[I] believed in-help Bart
Intended meaning: I believed with Bart.
The clear contrast in grammaticality between the (a) and the (b) sentences in (83)-(85)
comes as no surprise. [-m] PP-verbs assign neither an Agent theta-role nor a Cause
role (which can be interpreted as Agent). Therefore there can be no [+c-m] thetacluster (Instrument) in their theta-grid.
I conclude that /c of the internal theta-cluster of these verbs is not specified /+.
In the following subsection I will show that the value of /c is not negatively specified
either, thereby establishing the claim that it is indeed a [-m] cluster.
3.4.4.3 [-m] vs. [-c-m]: Although the distinction between these two roles seems
clear (i.e. [-m] can be interpreted as the cause, whereas [-c-m] cannot), sometimes the
two roles are not easily distinguished. Consider the following examples:
(86)
dan ohev et
yosi
Dan loves Acc Yosi
(87)
dan ma’amin be-yosi
Dan believes in-Yosi
The verbs ohev (‘loves’) and ma’amin (‘believes (in)’) are similar in some respect.
They are both psych verbs, thus their external theta-role is [-c+m] (or [+m]).52 The
goal of the present discussion is to show that they differ with respect to their internal
theta-role.
51
Since the small P occurring with the PP-verb ma’amin (‘believe’) is be-, I use the complex be-ezrat
(lit. ‘in-help’, meaning: ‘with the means of’) in (85b) in order to force the Instrumental reading of the
internal argument of ma’amin (‘believe’).
52
The external cluster of Subject Experiencer verbs such as ohev (‘loves’) is identified as [+m] in
Reinhart 2001, rather than [-c+m]. At least partially, this is motivated by theory-internal considerations.
More specifically, if the Experiencer cluster was [-c+m], verbs such as love, lacking a [+] theta-cluster,
would not be able to be marked with the [Acc] feature, contrary to facts.
85
We have already seen that identifying the internal role of some PP-verbs (e.g.
hitxaret (‘regretted’)) as [-m], rather than as [-c-m], is plausible, as it can (although it
need not) be interpreted as the cause of the emotion denoted by the verb. It is equally
plausible with regard to the verb ma’amin be- (‘believes (in)’) in (87), as its internal
argument can be interpreted as the cause of the ‘belief’, and therefore should not be
specified /+c. It is more difficult to show that the internal argument of ohev (‘loves’)
(86) is indeed a [-c-m] and not a [-m] cluster. After all, it is not implausible that the
argument bearing the internal role of ohev would be the cause of the emotion
expressed by the verb.
In what follows I will show that the relation between the fully specified [-c-m]
internal argument and the corresponding verb (e.g. love) is indeed different from the
relation between a [-m] argument and the corresponding verb (e.g. believe (in)).53
Let us start with a simple, but surprising contrast. Consider again the sentence in
(86) repeated below:
(88)
dan ohev
et yosi
Dan loves Acc Yosi
‘love’ is a rather strong positive emotion.54 Surprisingly, though, the assertion in (88)
does not automatically trigger in the hearer/reader the thoughts that Yosi is wise,
thoughtful, generous, funny, etc.
Compare now (88) with (89) featuring the verb believe:
(89)
dan ma’amin be-yosi
Dan believes in-Yosi
Similarly to ‘love’, ‘belief’ is also a positive emotion. However, the assertion in (89)
does seem to trigger in the hearer/reader some thoughts of justification for the
53
The following discussion is very informal and rather intuitive. This is probably due to the
observation that ‘causality’ is not a semantically definable relation (see Reinhart 2000 for discussion).
54
Pesetsky (1995), using a somewhat different terminology for theta roles, follows Nissenbaum (1985)
regarding the classification of Experiencer verbs such as ‘love’ as evaluating verbs. On this view the
internal argument of ‘love’ is the argument evaluated by the Experiencer as part of “the emotional
episode”. Evaluation can be positive (love) or negative (hate).
86
asserted ‘belief’. In other words, we do expect Yosi to have some properties which
can cause Dan to believe in him.
This intuitive contrast between (88) and (89) regarding the relevance of the
properties of the object to the meaning of the verb is not accidental. Consider the
following observation.
The property/ies of the object can be made (linguistically) explicit, as in (90a),
(91a). In context, (90a) and (91a) can be replaced by (90b), (91b), respectively. (90b),
(91b) are (at least) strong implications of (90a), (91a), and therefore they are
interchangeable. Crucially, there is no such relation between (92a) (some property of
Dan) and (92b). (92a) featuring the verbs ‘love’/’hate’ does not imply (92b), although
it may be the case that both are (accidentally) true. Therefore, replacing (92a) by
(92b) is impossible.
(90)
a. I believe in Dan’s potential.
b. I believe in Dan.
(91)
a. I rely on Dan’s punctuality/honesty.
b. I rely on Dan.
(92)
a. I love/hate Dan’s sense of humor/honesty.
b. I love/hate Dan.
I propose that the irrelevance of the properties of the object to the meaning of the
verb correlates with the /-c specification of the internal theta-cluster assigned by the
verb. The following can be viewed as the rationale behind the proposed correlation.
Assuming that an object is a name and the sum of its properties, it is the properties,
rather than the name, which can cause something.
If the properties of an
object/argument are irrelevant to the meaning (expressed by a verb), but only the
name is, the object cannot be interpreted as the cause.
In light of that, consider the following pair, where the irrelevance vs. relevance of
the properties of the object is especially clear:
(93) Despite the fact that it was a bad movie, in any possible respect, I liked it.
87
(94) Despite the fact that it is a bad theory, in any possible respect, I believe in it.
Note that uttering (93) does not render the speaker completely unintelligent,
quite the contrary. Despite the flaws she/he observed, she/he cannot help liking the
film. Clearly then, the properties of the object are irrelevant for an emotion such as
‘like’. The irrelevance of the properties to the state denoted by the verb is proposed
here to correlate with /-c. Since the specification of /m is clearly negative in the
discussed case, the internal cluster of like is the fully specified [-c-m] theta-cluster.
In contrast, if one insists on uttering (94), namely believing in a bad theory, we
cannot but conclude that the person is not very intelligent. In other words, the
properties of the object (e.g. the adequacy of the theory) are relevant for an emotion
such as ’believe’. Being relevant, they can be perceived as causing the belief. Since it
is the irrelevance of the properties which correlates with /-c, their relevance indicates
that the value of /c is unspecified and can be interpreted both ways.
The above contrasts ((88)-(94)) show that the internal argument of verbs like
love does not have the same interpretative status as the internal argument of [-m] PPverbs such as believe (in). Only the internal argument of the latter can be interpreted
as causing the state denoted by the verb, and therefore the role assigned to it should be
identified as [-m]. The internal argument of the former verb does not have such an
interpretation, suggesting that it is the fully specified [-c-m] theta-role.
In this section I have established the distinction between the unary [-m] and [-c]
theta-clusters and the corresponding fully specified ones, and shown that PP-verbs
assign the unary internal roles, as stated in (19). In the next section I will discuss and
account for the diversity attested among members of the PP-group across languages,
focusing on Hebrew, Russian and English.
88
3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguistically: the issue of divergence
Since the analysis of the phenomenon of PP-verbs relies on the thematic
structure of the verbs, and given the standard assumption that the theta-grids of
concepts do not vary dramatically across languages (Chomsky 1981), one would
expect that the groups of PP-verbs across languages should overlap notably. This,
however, does not seem to be the case.
Taking the random sample of 70 PP-verbs in Hebrew to be the reference set,
only 30 of them surface as PP-verbs in Russian, and just 20 of them are PP-verbs in
English. The question arises what underlies this variation. Is it in any way systematic?
Focusing on Hebrew, Russian and English, I will show that there are two major
sources of variation: (i) Some non-identity between the verbal concepts across
languages; (ii) The way the [-c] role is realized.
3.5.1 Realization of verbal concepts
Even though the thematic structure of concepts is universal, their realization is
not. In other words, verbal concepts across languages may seem identical, while in
fact, they are not (Tanya Reinhart p.c.). For example, several meanings, distributed in
some language between distinct verbal concepts, can be collapsed in another language
in one concept. This gives rise to some non-identity between concepts crosslinguistically. The non-identity may be very noticeable, or less so. If the collapsed
meanings are rather distinct, the non-identity between the ambiguous verbal concept
in one language and the distinct ones in the other is easily detectable. If the collapsed
meanings are closely related, the non-identity will be less noticeable.
Recall that the intuition which led me to the hypothesis that PP-verbs assign an
underspecified internal role was that these verbal concepts are semantically less
transparent than verbs which assign fully specified internal roles. Thus, given two
languages, if in one of them a certain verb carries several meanings, whereas in the
other each meaning is carried by a different verb, the verb in the former is less
transparent, than each of the two or three corresponding verbs in the latter.
The less transparent verbal concepts are the most natural candidates to be
analyzed as PP-verbs, namely verbs which assign an underspecified internal thetacluster.
89
The rather subtle cross-linguistic non-identity can be exemplified by the
following verbal concepts. The Hebrew verb pikpek be- can be interpreted as
‘doubted’ or as ‘questioned’; tamax be- is either ‘supported’ or ‘endorsed’; kine be- is
both ‘envied’ and [was] ‘jealous of’; hegen al is ‘defended’, ‘protected’ and
‘sheltered’; tipel be- can be translated as either ‘dealt with’/’took care of’ or
‘treated’.55
In order to illustrate a clear cross-linguistic non-identity, consider the verb paga
in Hebrew and its four English translations: ‘hit’, ‘hurt’ ‘damaged’, ‘insulted’. Given
the range of interpretations associated with paga, the most suitable identification of its
internal theta-cluster would be [-c] (Goal). As discussed earlier (see 3.4.3), the [-c]
role, in addition to being interpreted as Goal, is consistent with interpretations such as
Theme and Experiencer ([-c-m], [-c+m], respectively). Therefore both [+human] and
[-human] DPs can realize it, as shown in (95). This is not the case in English. In
English each interpretation associated with paga is carried out by a distinct lexical
entry. Only the internal argument of hit is [-c], which is compatible with both
[+human] and [-human] DPs (96a). The internal arguments of damaged and
hurt/insulted are [-c-m] (Theme) and [-c+m] (Experiencer), respectively. Therefore
hurt/insulted are possible with Rina (96b), but not with negotiations or a wall of
indifference, and damaged is possible only with negotiations (96c):56
(95)
milotav
pag’u
be-xoma šel adišut
/be-rina/ ba-masa-u-matan
words+his hit/hurt/insulted/damaged in-wall of indifference/in-Rina/in+the-negotiations
(96)
a. “His words hit a wall of indifference/Rina/?the negotiations.”
b. “His words hurt/insulted Rina/*a wall of indifference/*the negotiations.”
c. “His words damaged the negotiations/*Rina/*a wall of indifference.”
To recapitulate, the realization of concepts is not necessarily identical across
languages. This is what underlies, to some extent, the attested cross-linguistic
variation.
55
The examples in the text should be taken as an illustration. In order to establish that it is typical of
Hebrew PP-verbs to correspond to several verbs in English, a comparison with Accusative verbs is
necessary (Alexis Dimitriadis p.c.).
56
The impossibility of ‘a wall of indifference’ with damaged (96c) is probably due to some kind of
semantic anomaly. With other verbs such as ‘destroyed’ or ‘shattered’ the sentence is fine.
90
But the non-identical realization of concepts cannot be the only source for the
cross-linguistic diversity. After all, it is not the case that every PP-verb in Hebrew is
translated into two or three verbs in English. Furthermore, at least some of the
mentioned English translations are [-c] verbs themselves (e.g. hit). The question is
why these verbs do not surface as PP-verbs in English. This is the issue I turn to next.
3.5.2 Variation in the [-c] group
It appears that a massive non-overlap, especially between Hebrew and English
is attested in the [-c] group of PP-verbs. In other words, many Hebrew PP-verbs,
classified in this study as [-c] PP-verbs are translated in English without any P (see
3.4.3). Thus compare the group of [-m] PP-verbs in (97), in which almost all English
verbs are PP-verbs, with the group of [-c] PP-verbs in (98):57
(97)
(98)
57
Hebrew
English
Russian
samax al
relied on
pologalsya na
he’emin be-
believed in
veril v
hit’akeš al
insisted on
nasta’ival na
hit’anyen be- [was] interested in
interesovalsya DP-Instr
histapek be-
[was] satisfied with
[bil] udovletvoren DP-Instr
hitxaret al
regretted
sožalel DP-Acc
hit’abel al
mourned
skorbel o (‘on’), o-plakival
English
Russian
Hebrew
tamax be-
supported
podderžival DP-Acc
asar al
forbid
zapretil DP-Dat
bagad be-
betrayed
izmenil DP-Dat
pakad al
ordered
prikazal DP-Dat
iyem al
threatened
ugrožal DP-Dat
hišpi’a al
influenced
povliyal na
himer al
bet on
stavil na
hibit be-
looked at
posmotrel na
As already noted, the group of [-c] verbs is substantially larger than that of [-m] verbs, which is
almost exhaustive in (97).
91
The group in (98) is not meant to exhaust the group of [-c] Hebrew PP-verbs, but
rather to illustrate the situation which obtains in this group (the more exhaustive list of
verbs appears in Appendix B). As can be seen from (98), although there are some
Hebrew [-c] verbs which surface as PP-verbs in English (and Russian), many others
do not surface as such in English. The question is why there are [-c] verbs in English
which appear without a preposition. What makes it possible? Before I provide the
answer for the raised question, some words of clarification regarding the realization of
the [-c] role are necessary.
3.5.2.1 The [-c] cluster and Dative Case: In sections 3.2 and 3.3 it is argued that
Hebrew PP-verbs are associated with [PC] (rather than with [Acc]), which is realized
by small Ps, whose function is to check the Case of the nominal. Thus PC is viewed as
a Case-checking device.
Based on the observation that many [-c] verbs in Russian appear with a Dative
DP, I propose that in some languages Dative Case, rather than a small P, may be used
when a given two/three-place verb is not marked with [Acc].58 This is stated in (99):
(99) Dative Case on a par with PC is a device to check the Case of the nominal
argument of an Accusative-less verb.
There are many intriguing questions regarding Dative Case. For example, is it
inherent or structural Case? How is it realized syntactically across languages, and to
what extent is its mapping to grammatical functions and thematic roles predictable
(Kayne 1984; Emonds 1985; Franks and Greenberg 1988; Baker 1997; Bayer et al.
2001; Maling 2001, among many others)? Needless to say that addressing these
questions will take us too far aside. For our purposes it suffices to understand the
differences between the realization of the [-c] cluster as a PP and as a Dative
argument. I propose that the difference between the Dative Case device and the small
58
See also Reinhart (2000, 2001) where it is suggested that [-c] is typically realized as Dative Case or
as a PP. It should be noted that although Dative Case is the typical Case of [-c] arguments, it is not
restricted to [-c] arguments. As for the PP realization of the [-c] role, various small Ps may occur, not
necessarily the typical Goal P such as to.
92
P device involves the syntactic category of the complement of the verb. The former
device gives rise to a Dative DP, the latter to a PP.59
The Dative realization of the [-c] cluster is illustrated by some [-c] verbs in
Russian; Dative Case is marked morphologically as a suffix on the DP:
(100)
a. on izmenil
Sach-e
he betrayed Sacha-Dat
b. on ugrožal
mn-e
he threatened me-Dat
c. on prikazal mn-e
uyti
he ordered me-Dat to+leave
d. on zapretil mn-e
kurity…
he forbid me-Dat to+smoke
The PP realization of [-c] is exhibited by the Hebrew verbs in (98) above, some
of which are repeated in (101):60
(101) a. dan asar
al dina
le’ašen
Dan forbid on Dina to+smoke
b. dan bagad
be-dina
Dan betrayed in-Dina
c. dan pakad
al dina la’azov
Dan ordered on Dina to+leave
d. dan iyem
al dina
Dan threatened on Dina
59
Thus I am departing from the views that Goals or morphologically Case-marked DPs are realized
uniformly as PPs headed by an empty P (Kayne 1984, Emonds 1985, Baker 1997). I believe that even
if an empty P is present in these cases, it has the status of a lexical nominal affix or a Case feature,
rather than that of a syntactic head P (see the Appendix in chapter 4). The distinction drawn in the text
between the Dative Case realization and PP realization does not preclude the possibility that in some
languages Dative Case is realized with an additional functional layer (e.g. KP), as proposed for German
in Bayer et al. 2001.
60
Dative Case in Hebrew is assigned or marked by an affixal P-morpheme le- (‘to’) (see chapter 4).
The absence of Hebrew PP-verbs using the Dative Case device, namely le- (‘to’) in (98) is accidental
and due to the fact that I chose to focus throughout the chapter on PP-verbs which occur with be- (‘in’)
and al (‘on’). Examples of the Hebrew (monotransitive) [-c] verbs which use the Dative Case device
(i.e. le) are azar le- (‘’helped’), he’emin le- (‘believed’), hix’iv le- (‘caused pain to’), etc.
93
I take the fact that the Hebrew [-c] verbs in (101), which correspond to the
Russian [-c] verbs in (100), do not appear with the Dative Case marker le- (‘to’), but
rather with the prepositions be- (‘in’) and al (‘on’), to indicate that the function of the
Dative Case is different in Hebrew and Russian. It seems that in Hebrew, but not in
Russian, Dative Case is limited to the [-c] cluster interpreted as Recipient rather than
any other kind of [-c] (e.g. spatial Goal, see below for further discussion).
In the following section I will show that the same possibilities to realize the [-c]
role, namely Dative Case or PP, are used in English.
3.5.2.2
[-c]
in
English:
I
first
repeat
the
exemplary
group
of
Hebrew/Russian/English [-c] verbs in (102):
(102) Hebrew
English
Russian
tamax be-
supported
podderžival DP-Acc
asar al
forbid
zapretil DP-Dat
bagad be-
betrayed
izmenil DP-Dat
pakad al
ordered
prikazal DP-Dat
iyem al
threatened
ugrožal DP-Dat
hišpi’a al
influenced
povliyal na
himer al
bet on
stavil na
hibit be-
looked at
posmotrel na
The last two verbs, bet (on) and looked (at) illustrate the expected PP realization
of the [-c] role, and therefore present no problem. However, the other verbs occur
with no preposition in English, and therefore might be assumed to be Accusative
assigning verbs. But in the Theta System framework assumed here (Reinhart 2000,
2001, 2002), verbs which assign a [-c] role are not marked with [Acc] (see 3.2.3).
Given (99), their [-c] role can be realized either via Dative Case (103a) or as a PP
(103b). Let us examine which option is more plausible.
(103)
(a) The [-c] role of the English verbs with no overt P is realized via Dative Case.
(b) English [-c] verbs with no overt P realize their [-c] role using an empty P (PP).
94
Note that the options in (103) do not differ much one from the other. Both are
possible devices to check the Case of the nominal. Both suffer from a certain degree
of abstractness. The abstractness of (103a) stems from the absence of Dative
morphology in English; the abstractness of (103b) is due to the presence of an empty
P. There are, however, arguments which seem to favor the option in (103a) (i.e.
Dative Case) over the one in (103b) (i.e. empty P).
First, postulating an empty small P at this stage would be rather surprising. As
discussed in 3.3.3, there seems to be some kind of semantic compatibility between a
PP-verb and the small P it selects. This is reasonable if the prepositions are
phonetically overt.
Further, Dative and Accusative are morphologically indistinct in English.
Therefore, the claim that the [-c] cluster can be realized via Dative Case in English is
plausible. Moreover, although English does not distinguish morphologically between
Accusative and Dative Cases, it can be argued that they are distinguished in some
other fashion (i.e. V-DP adjacency: I gave [John
Dat]
[the book
Acc]
vs. *I gave [the
book Acc] [John Dat]).
Finally, if the [-c] argument is realized as a phonetically null PP, rather than a
Dative DP, one would expect that extraction out of this PP would pattern with
extraction out of a phonetically realized PP. This, however, is not the case. The
following extraction facts favor the Dative Case option.
Extraction out of a DP is rather difficult across languages, but it is possible in
varying degrees in some languages, among them English. Extraction out of a DP in
English is felicitous if P-stranding takes place, as shown in (104a) with a clearly
Accusative verb destroy. Furthermore, it is possible to extract out of a PP if the P can
be stranded (i.e. if the P can be reanalyzed with the V, following Hornstein and
Weinberg 1981), as shown in (104b). What seems to be rather ungrammatical even in
English is extraction out of a DP embedded in a PP (104c,d).
(104)
a. Which president did you destroy [DP visits of t][-c-m]?
b. Which president did you count [PP on t] ?
c. ??Which president did you count [PP on [DP visits of t]][-m]?
d. ??Which president did you bet [PP on [DP a visit of t]][-c]?
95
Now note that extracting a part of the internal argument of the discussed [-c] verbs in
English is grammatical (105). Thus extraction in (105) patterns with extraction out of
the Accusative DP object of the verb destroy (104a), rather than with the
ungrammatical extraction out of the DP embedded in a PP (104c,d):
(105)
a. Which president did you support [?? a visit of t][-c] ?
b. Which president did you betray [?? relatives of t][-c] ?
On the assumption that the complement of the English [-c] verbs which appear with
no overt preposition is a DP rather than a PP (headed by an empty P), the extraction
facts exemplified in (105) follow.
Let me summarize the assumptions which allow us to adopt the claim that the
[-c] cluster in English can be realized via Dative Case:
(106) Dative Case in English
a. Dative Case is a possible device to check the Case of a nominal in some languages,
including English.
b. Dative and Accusative Cases are (morphologically) non-distinct in English.
c. Dative Case in English is instantiated either through the preposition to (e.g. I gave a
book to John), or as a Dative DP that has to be adjacent to the verb (e.g. I gave John a
book).61
With (106) we can analyze English [-c] verbs occurring without an overt P
uniformly. A DP realizing the [-c] role is a Dative DP, similarly to the corresponding
Dative DPs in Russian or Hebrew, though without any morphological marking.62 The
61
For analyses of the Dative construction and the Double Object construction see Oehrle 1976; Kayne
1984; Larson 1988a; Den Dikken 1995, Baker 1997, among many others).
62
This claim seems to be challenged in French. As far as full DPs are concerned, in French, like in
English, Accusative and Dative are morphologically non-distinct. However, it is standardly assumed
that the French pronominal clitics do exhibit this distinction (cf. Kayne 1975). Thus for instance, le is
analyzed as third person, singular, masculine Accusative clitic,and lui is its Dative counterpart. Given
this, the following example may seem problematic for the proposed Dative Case realization of the [-c]
role:
(i)
a. Je croit Jean
“I believe Jean.”
b. Je le/*lui
croit
I him-Acc/him-Dat believe.
“I believe him.”
96
adjacency requirement between the Dative DP and the verb is trivially respected,
since the [-c] verbs under discussion are monotransitive (e.g. supported, threatened,
ordered).63
The Dative Case realization of the [-c] cluster in English is supported by the
deverbal nominals in (107), which occur with the Dative preposition to. On a
reasonable assumption that Dative Case in English is available in the verbal domain
only, and given (106c), the occurrence of to is fully expected.
(107)
a. His threats to Mary were unnoticed.
b. His order to the soldiers was well known.
c. His help to the elderly was appreciated.
In this respect, note that while some nominals derived from [-c] verbs occur
with to, other occur with of or on, as shown in (108):
(108)
a. John’s betrayal of his family caused him no regret.
b. Lisa’s influence on Bart was minimal.
Believe (someone, rather than in someone), is a [-c] assigning verb. This is indicated clearly in Hebrew
by the Dative P-morpheme le- (‘to’) and in Russian by Dative Case on the argument realizing this
cluster. Since this argument is not realized as a PP in French, my proposal predicts that it should be
realized as a Dative DP, similarly to its English counterpart. However, the clitic in (ib) is Accusative
rather than Dative, apparently indicating that the DP is Accusative, thus falsifying the prediction. This
matter certainly deserves more research in the future. At this stage I can propose only a speculative
account. Note first that unlike in English, a full DP realizing a Goal argument is invariably introduced
by the P-morpheme à (‘to’) in French. Second, it is well-known that French has pro-PP clitics (e.g. en,
de, y) (Kayne 1975). It is then not implausible to analyze lui as a pro-PP clitic (i.e. a clitic replacing the
PP headed by à in the Dative construction), rather than as a Dative clitic. Since in (ia) the complement
of the verb is not a PP but rather a Dative DP, it is not surprising that it is not replaced by lui, but rather
by le, which is a pro-DP clitic.
63
It is worth noting that there is a distinction between the arguably Dative [-c] arguments of the typical
ditransitive Dative verbs such as give in the Double Object (DO) construction, and the Dative [-c]
arguments of the monotransitive verbs such as support. Descriptively speaking, the adjacency between
the verb and the [-c] argument seems to be stricter in the DO construction. Thus the [-c] DP in the DO
construction cannot be removed from its V-adjacent position even by Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) (i),
whereas this is not the case for the [-c] argument of support (ii) (I thank Julia Horvath for pointing out
the difference):
(i)
(ii)
*I gave the book [every man who entered the room] [-c].
I supported in the struggle [every man who showed any strength of character] [-c].
On a fairly accepted assumption that the V-DP adjacency in the DO construction is derived, rather than
base-generated (cf. Den Dikken 1995), it is plausible that this is what blocks the HNPS in DO
construction. In contrast, the V-adjacent position of the [-c] argument of a monotransitive verb such as
support is arguably its base-generated position. Consequently, HNPS of this argument is possible.
97
The question arises what regulates the distribution of to in nominals? In order to
answer the question, we need to clarify further the nature of to in English.
to is undeniably a small P in English, and as such it performs various
grammatical functions. As already mentioned, to introduces the Goal argument of
ditransitive Dative verbs, marking it as Dative. Goal is usually interpreted as a
Recipient (or as a Possessor, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2002). In addition, to
introduces the Goal argument of Directional verbs, which I label ‘spatial Goal’ (see
the immediately following discussion in 3.5.2.3).64 This is stated in (109):
(109)
The preposition to in English is appropriate to introduce phrases
interpreted either as a Recipient or as spatial Goal only.
Note, however, that Recipient and spatial Goal do not exhaust the interpretations
of the [-c] role. Benefactive/Malfactive, (spatial) Source, non-spatial Goal (e.g.
envied/betrayed John), Theme (e.g. bet on) and Experiencer (e.g. influenced)
interpretations are all compatible with the [-c] cluster.
We can now account for the puzzling distribution of to in the nominal forms
illustrated in (107) and (108). Given (106a), all the interpretations of [-c] can be
realized in the verbal domain as Dative Case (or as a PP, if an appropriate small
preposition exists). However, since in the nominal domain Dative Case is not
available, a small P occurs. It will be to only if the relevant [-c] argument is
interpreted as a Recipient or spatial Goal, since these are the only interpretations to is
compatible with (109).
From the fact that many [-c] verbs in English appear without a preposition, even
if the argument realizing [-c] is interpreted as a Recipient, and may, therefore, be
introduced by to, it is reasonable to conclude that the Dative Case realization of [-c] is
the default option in English. In other words, Dative to will occur only if the [-c]
argument cannot be adjacent to the verb.65 Given this, it is unexpected that there
64
By ‘spatial Goal’ I mean the [-c] argument of either concrete or abstract directional verbs (e.g. send
is a concrete directional verb, whereas speak is an abstract one).
65
The question not addressed in this study is why a [-c] argument of some PP-verbs verbs is realized as
a Dative DP (e.g. support, threaten), whereas the same kind of argument assigned by other PP-verbs
has to be realized as a PP (e.g. bet on, look at). I find promising the direction outlined for [-c] PP-verbs
in Dutch in Ten Have, Schippers, Van Steenbergen and Vlasveld (2003).
98
would be [-c] PP-verbs in English which occur obligatorily with to. But there are such
verbs (e.g. speak to, talk to). I conclude this section with a brief discussion of the
obligatory occurrence of to with certain [-c] PP-verbs.
3.5.2.3 The obligatory occurrence of to: Based on the above discussion, the
internal argument of the [-c] PP-verbs in English occurring with no preposition is a
Dative DP. The preposition to, which instantiates Dative Case, does not occur, since
the argument is adjacent to the verb. Why then there are [-c] PP-verbs such as speak
to, talk to, which occur with to?
As already mentioned, the preposition to is used both in the Dative and in the
Directional constructions. It introduces Recipients in the former and spatial Goals in
the latter.
It is argued extensively in chapter 4 that the Dative to is a purely Case related
P. Therefore, in the English Dative construction an argument interpreted as a
Recipient may be realized either as the complement of to (e.g. I sent a book to John)
or without to, as a Dative DP adjacent to the verb (e.g. I sent John a book). As noted
above, the Dative Case realization is predominant in the English PP-verb
constructions, as the [-c] argument is adjacent to the verb.
In contrast, in the Directional construction in English to carries the
‘directional’ meaning conveyed by the verb and therefore cannot be omitted (*I sent
Paris Rina). In other words, the presence of to is essential for the spatial Goal
interpretation of the [-c] argument. Thus, English PP-verbs which occur with to (e.g.
speak to, talk to) are Directional verbs. Their [-c] argument is interpreted as spatial
Goal, rather than a Recipient, and therefore has to be introduced by to, regardless of
its adjacency to the verb.
To summarize, I have proposed that Dative Case, on a par with PC, is a device
to check Case. Given this and a few assumptions regarding Dative Case in English,
the apparent cross-linguistic diversity between English and Hebrew [-c] verbs is
accounted for. The [-c] verbs in English which occur without an overt preposition
realize their [-c] role as a Dative DP rather than a PP. Strictly speaking, then, it would
be misleading to refer to these verbs as PP-verbs. However, since they exemplify the
same kind of phenomenon as verbs realizing their [-c] argument as a PP, it will be
more explanatory to view the term ‘PP-verb’ as a cover term for verbs which are not
associated with the [Acc] feature, and therefore have to use one device or the other to
99
check the Case of their nominal complement, rather than to divide them into two
groups.
100
Appendix A: Residual issues
The analysis I have proposed for the phenomenon of PP-verbs accounts for the
vast majority of these verbs. There are, however, verbs which present difficulties and
therefore deserve some particular attention.
I. PP-verbs of motion
The verbs hibit, histakel (‘glanced at’, ‘looked at’) and yara (‘shot at’) are
classified here as [-c] verbs. However, they differ in two respects from the majority of
[-c] PP-verbs discussed in this study.
First, these verbs occur in Hebrew with either be- (‘in’/‘at’) or al (‘on’). This is
completely atypical of PP-verbs, which occur with one specific P-morpheme.66 In
English they occur with the P-morpheme at, which is also quite unique to these verbs.
Second, in addition to their occurrence with the small Ps be-/al, these verbs can
occur with various locative PPs (e.g. hu hibit mitaxat la-šulxan (‘he looked under the
table’)), similarly to locative verbs such as put. In what follows I will focus mostly on
this peculiarity.
Consider the following binding facts. When the discussed verbs occur with the
small Ps be-/al, the binding facts are those exhibited by PP-verbs, namely the nominal
introduced by the P has to be reflexive, if coindexed with the subject (A.1). However,
when they occur with a locative PP the binding facts are those exhibited with locative
verbs such as put (see chapter 4, and Hestvik 1991), a pronoun introduced by the
locative P can be coreferential with the subject (A.2):
(A.1) hui hibit al/be-acmoi/ *al-avi/ *boi/
he looked on/in-himself/on-him/in+him
(A.2) hui hibit *sviv acmoi /sviv-oi /??mitaxat le-acmoi //mitaxt-avi
he looked around himself/around-him/under to-himself/under-him
66
The be-/al alternation is accompanied by some semantic difference with the verb yara (‘shot’); e.g.
yariti ba-naxaš (‘I shot the snake’), implies that the snake was hit; yariti al ha-naxaš (‘I shot at the
snake’), does not imply that the snake was hit.
101
Note also that although be-/al are locative Ps, they do not exhibit the bottom-up
dependency (A.3a), typical of locative Ps (A.3b). This means that be-/al are not
associated with locative semantics:
(A.3) a. dan hibit
be-/al kir
Dan looked in-/on wall
“Dan looked at a wall.”
b. dan sam et
ha-tmuna *be-/al kir
Dan put Acc the-picture in-/on wall
A potential complication is illustrated in (A.4), where be- (‘in’) denotes the
interior region of the casserole, namely it is semantically locative:
(A.4)
dan hibit
ba-sir
(ve-ra’a še-hu rek)
Dan looked in+the-casserole (and-saw that-he empty)
“Dan looked into the casserole (and saw that it is empty).”
Note however, that be- in (A.4) is paraphrasable by a complex P be-tox (lit. ‘ininterior’, meaning ‘inside’), as shown in (A.5) (underlined). I will assume, then that
when the interpretation of be- is locative, it is a short form of be-tox (‘inside’).
(A.5) dan hibit
ba-sir/be-tox ha-sir
Dan looked in+the casserole/ in-interior the-casserole
“Dan looked inside the casserole.”
Given the binding distinction, and the lack of bottom-up dependency, it is
reasonable to conclude that the small Ps be-/al in (A.1) realize PC (rather than PR).
Viewed this way, the discussed verbs are indeed PP-verbs. The question which
remains is what underlies their ability to occur with ‘real’ locative PPs.
I propose that these PP-verbs, in addition to being [-c] PP-verbs, are also
Directional verbs. They differ from the familiar Directional verbs in that the moving
entity is not a separate (syntactic) argument, but rather integrated with the verb. More
specifically, the moving entity is one’s glance. That the glance can be moved and
located (linguistically) is clear from the following examples:
102
(A.6) a. mabat-o nadad
(motion)
glance-his wandered
“His glance wandered.”
b. hu taka bi
mabat niz’am
(change of location)
he stuck in+me glance furious
“He stuck in me a furious glance.”
c. hu he’if le-evr-i
mabat niz’am
(direction)
he threw to-side-mine glance furious
“He threw in my direction a furious glance.”
Recall that the structure proposed for PP-verbs is the following:
(A.7) [VP V [PP PC be-/al DP]]
This structure underlies the occurrence of the discussed verbs with be-/al as PP-verbs
(e.g. (A.3a)). On the assumption that these verbs can be interpreted also as Directional
verbs, I propose that in addition to the structure in (A.7), they can also occur in the
structure shown in (A.8). Note that both a PP and a DP are appropriate to realize
Location. The former denotes a specific Location (e.g. under the table), the latter
(e.g. the table) is interpreted as Location if introduced by a Locative or Directional P:
(A.8) [VP V [PP Pdir PP/DPlocation]]67
Consider the following, which supports the Directional analysis of these verbs.
In Hebrew, the Directional P may remain phonetically null, when its locative
complement is a PP headed by a locative P such as under. However, if the location is
expressed by a DP, rather than by a locative PP, the typical Directional P-morpheme
le-/el (‘to’) appears. This is illustrated in (A.9):68
67
This structure reflects Jackendovian representation of change of location verbs, where a PATH
predicate takes Location as its complement (Jackendoff 1990) (see also chapter 4). The syntactic
hierarchy between the Directional and Locative Ps is argued extensively in Koopman 2000, as well as
in Van Riemsdijk and Huybregts 2001.
68
The fact that the Directional morpheme le-/el (‘to’) does not have to surface if a Locative P is present
may indicate that the relation which licenses the empty Directional P is probably between the
Directional and Locative P-heads. Whether this relation is best viewed as head-movement is a separate
question.
103
(A.9) a. hu hibit
(el) mitaxat la-šulxan
he looked (to) under to+the-table
“He looked under the table.”
b. hu hibit *(le)-šam/*(el) ha-ofek
he looked to-there/to the-horizon
“He looked there/at the horizon.”
In sum, the discussed verbs may occur with either a Directional P or with PC.
The occurrence with the former underlies their locative use, as the Directional P takes
a locative (PP/DP) complement.
II. Default PC in Hebrew
Until now I have discussed the occurrence of PC with verbs whose internal
theta-cluster is underspecified (PP-verbs). This however, does not exhaust the
distribution of PC. In what follows I will discuss two instances of what I call ‘default
PC’, namely PC that occurs when a verb is unable to check the Case feature of its fully
specified internal argument.
a) Similarly to many other Object Experiencer verbs discussed in Reinhart 2001,
hitkaša be- (‘had difficulty with’) is derived from hikša (‘made difficult’) by a lexical
operation which reduces a [+c] cluster (labeled here R[+c]). As the result of the
reduction, the [Acc] marking of the verb is eliminated. The theta-grid of the causative
hikša (‘made difficult’) and the output of the reduction which results in hitkaša be(‘had difficulty (with)’) are shown in (A.10a) and (A.11a), respectively. Each entry is
accompanied by a relevant example (A.10b), (A.11b).
(A.10)
a. hikša: [+c]1 [+m-c] Pc al [-c-m]2 [Acc]
b. ha-more/ha-xom[+c] hikša
al ha-talmidim[-c+m]
et ha-bxina[-c-m]
The-teacher/the-heat made difficult on the-students Acc the-exam
(A.11)
a. R[+c] hikša Æ hitkaša: [+m-c]
b. ha-talmidim[-c+m] hitkašu
[-c-m]2 Pc beba-bxina[-c-m]
The-students [had] difficulty in+the-exam
104
Given its theta-grid, hikša is marked with [Acc] and checks the Case feature of
the argument realizing the fully specified [-c-m] cluster (underlined in (A.10b)). In the
reduced entry (A.11a) [Acc] is eliminated, and the verb can no longer check the Case
feature of the nominal. It is therefore associated with the default PC and the fully
specified [-c-m] cluster is introduced by be- (A.11b).
b) In Russian the verb podozreval (‘suspected’) assigns Accusative. This
suggests that its internal cluster is fully specified (i.e. [-c-m]). But the Hebrew verb
xašad (‘suspected’) occurs with the preposition be-. The question arises as to why it
does not check Accusative.
Recall that for the verb to be marked for [Acc], it has to have also a [+] cluster
(i.e. a cluster all of whose features are /+). The external role of ‘suspect’ (in any
language) is more likely to be Experiencer ([-c+m]), rather than Agent ([+c+m]).
Thus, the really puzzling fact is the presence of [Acc] in Russian (and possibly in
English), rather than the occurrence of be- (‘in’) in Hebrew. I believe that Hebrew
reveals a possible solution for the noted puzzle.
The verb xašad (‘suspected’) in Hebrew has a causative alternate hexšid
(‘caused be under suspicion’). The theta-grid of hexšid is shown in (A.12a), the
relevant sentence is given in (A.12b):
(A.12)
a. hexšid: [+c]1 [-c-m]2Acc [-c+m] Pbe-eyney (lit. ‘in-eyes’, meaning ‘by’)
b. hitnahagut-o[+c]1 hexšida
et dan[-c-m] be-eyney rabim[-c+m]
behavior-his caused+be+under+suspicion Acc Dan in-eyes many
“His behavior caused many people to suspect Dan.”
Following Reinhart (2001), the causative entry exemplified in (A.12a) is the basic
entry, from which xašad (‘suspected’) is derived by [+c] reduction (R[+c]). This is
shown in (A.13). As already mentioned, reduction eliminates the [Acc] marking of the
verb. Note that the [-c-m] cluster in the derived entry does not change its mapping
marking 2.
(A.13) R[+c] hexšid ([+c]1 [-c-m]2Acc [-c+m]) Æ xašad: [-c-m]2Pc be- [-c+m]
105
In the absence of [Acc], the default PC realized by be- has to be used, as the verb can
no longer check the Case feature of the nominal. Further, since the Experiencer
cluster ([-c+m]) is not marked with the mapping index, and the Theme cluster ([-c-m])
is marked as internal, the Experiencer is mapped externally (see 3.2.3 and Reinhart
2000)), as shown in (A.14):
(A.14)
rabim[-c+m] xošdim be-dan[-c-m] 2
many
suspect in-Dan
“Many people suspect Dan.”
The proposal so far accounts for the fact that xašad (‘suspected’) is not an
Accusative assigning verb, although its internal cluster is fully specified. The question
which still remains is why the corresponding Russian (and possibly English) verb is
an Accusative verb.
I propose that podozreval (Russian) and suspect (English) have the same thetagrid as the causative Hebrew entry hexšid (A.12), rather than that of xašad, namely:
[+c]1 [-c-m]2 Acc [-c+m]. I propose further that the difference between Hebrew on the
one hand, and English and Russian on the other hand, is the status of the [+c] cluster.
It is lexically active in the former, but lexically frozen (i.e. never realized) in the latter
(see Reinhart 2000 for additional examples). As opposed to Hebrew, ‘suspect’ in
Russian and English is not a result of reduction, but rather of the non-realization of
the frozen [+c] cluster. The presence of the (frozen) [+c] in the theta-grid of ‘suspect’
in English/Russian gives rise to the [Acc] marking of the discussed verb in these
languages.
106
Appendix B
Table 1. 70 Hebrew PP-verbs and their translation into Russian and English.
Remarks: (i) The gloss of Hebrew Ps: be- (‘in’, ‘with’); al (‘on’); le- (‘to’ – Dative, Directional); el
(‘to’, Directional); me- (‘from’, ‘of’). (ii) If neither P nor Case are specified, the verb assigns
Accusative in Russian.
Hebrew
English
Russian
1. ba’at (be-)
kicked
2. xavat (be-)
beaten, stroked
bil po (‘on’)
3. halam (be-)
beaten, stroked
barabanil po (‘on’)
4. hika (be-)
beat, hit
bil po (‘on’)
5. naga (be-)
touched
dotronulsya do (‘to’)
6. tamax (be-)
supported, endorsed
podderžival
7. baxar (be-)
chose
vibral
8. nazaf (be-)
scolded, reproached
vigovoril Dat
9. hifcir (be-)
pleaded with
molil
10. tipel (be-)
dealt with, treated
zanimalsya-Instr
11. he’ic (be-)
prompted
toropil
12. xibel (be-)
tempered with, sabotaged
vredil Dat
13. alav (be-)
Insulted
obidel
14. paga (be-)
hit, hurt, insulted, damaged
popal v (‘in’), obidel
15. bagad (be-)
betrayed
izmenil Dat
16. šita (be-)
made fool of
17. rada (be-)
behaved like a tyran
gospodstvoval nad
(‘above’)
18. šalat (al)
governed, ruled
vlastvoval nad (‘above’)
19. šalat (be-)
mastered
vladel Instr
20. gaval (be-)
bordered with
groničil s (‘with’)
21. xalaš (al)
[was] located above
22. hiškif (al)
overlooked
23. hišpi’a (al)
influenced, affected
povliyal na (‘on’)
24. iyem (al)
threatened
ugrožal Dat
25. pakad (al)
ordered
prikazal Dat
26. asar (al)
forbid
zapretil Dat
27. he’emin (be-)
believed (in)
veril v (‘in’)
28. batax (be-)
trusted
doveral Dat
29. nitla (be-)
depended (on)
zavisel ot (‘from’)
30. xašad (be-)
suspected
podozreval
31. pikpek (b-)
doubted, questioned
somnevalsya v (‘in’)
107
32. samax (al)
relied (on)
pologalsya na (‘on’)
33. kine (be-)
envied, was jealous of
zavidoval-Dat
34. rixem (al)
pitied
žalel
35. hibit (be-/al)
glanced (at)
posmotrel na (‘on’)
36. histakel (be-/al)
looked (at)
posmotrel na (‘on’)
37. hivxin (be-)
noticed
zametil
38. hitbonen (be-)
looked (at) carefully, observed
smotrel na (‘on’), obozreval
39. cafa (be-)
watched
smotrel na (‘on’)
40. baha (b-)
glared (at)
smotrel v (‘in’)
41. iyen (be-)
went through
prosmotrel
42. himer (al)
bet (on)
postavil na (‘on’)
43. hegen (al)
defended
zaĉiĉal
44. šamar (al)
kept
soxranyal
45. yara (be-/al)
shot at
strelal v/na (‘in’/’on’)
46. hilšin (al)
told on
nagovoril na (‘on’)
47. he’erim (al)
deceived
obmanul
48. ximer (be-)
speeded up (an animal)
49. davak (be-)
stuck to
primik k (‘to’)
50. cided (be-)
sided with
priderživalsya Gen
51. zinev (be-)
Lit.: cut the tail. Meaning: cut the edge
52. hiclif (be-)
whipped
xlestal
53. xafac (be-)
wanted, desired
želal, xotel
54. xašak (be-)
desired, lusted, fancied
želal, xotel
55. dan (be-)
discussed
diskusiroval
56. hitxaret (al)
regret
sožalel, peredumal
57. hit’akeš (al)
insisted on
za’upryamilsya v (‘in’)
58. hit’abel (al)
mourned
skorbel o (‘on’), oplakival
59. hit’anyen (be-)
[was] interested in
interesovalsya Instr
60. hitkaša (be-)
[had] difficulties with
zatrudnilsya v (‘in’)
61. hitbayeš (be-)
[was] embarrassed by
stesnyalsya Instr
62. histapek (be-)
[was] satisfied with
udovlitvorilsya Instr
63. hit’ahev (be-)
fell in love with
vlubilsya v (‘in’)
64. he’emin (le-)
believed
veril Dat
65. kine (le-)
[was] jealous of
revnoval Dat
66. hitpalel (le-)
prayed to
molilsya Dat
67. serev (le-)
refused
otkazal Dat
68. hitmaser (le-)
gave in to
sdalsya Dat
69. hitga’age’a (le-/el)
missed, longed for
skučal po (‘on’)
70. azar (le-)
helped
pomog Dat
71. sagad (le-)
worshiped
preklonyalsya Dat
72. paxad (me-)
feared, [was] afraid of
boyalsya Gen
73. salad (me-)
[was] disgusted by
otpryanul ot (‘from’)
108
Table 2. Some properties of the Hebrew PP-verbs
The road map
e - event denoting nominal
r -result nominal
E – event (verbal aspect)
S – state (verbal aspect)
a – activity verb
Property
Θ roles
Passive* Isolated
Root*
Verb
1. ba’at (be-)
Nominalizations**
r
Aspect***
e
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
beyta (a kick)
E/S(a)
2. xavat (be-)
[+c] [-c]
-
-
xavata (a stroke)
E/S(a)
3. halam (be-)
[+c] [-c]
-
+
(halamot) ‘strokes’
E/S(a)
4. hika (be-)
[+c] [-c]
-
+
(maka) ‘a stroke’
E/S(a)
5. naga (be-)
[+c] [-c]
-
-
negi’a
negi’a
E/S(a)
6. tamax (be-)
[+c] [-c]
+
+
tmixa
tmixa
S(a)
7. baxar (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]/[-c-m]
+
+
bxira
bxira
E
8. nazaf (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
+
nezifa
nezifa
E
9. hifcir (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
hafcara
E
10. tipel (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
+
tipul
S(a)
11. he’ic (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
he’aca
E
12. xibel (be-)
[+c] [-c]
-
+
xabala
xabala
E
13. alav (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
elbon (insult)
14. paga (be-)
[+c] [-c]
+
+
pgi’a
pgi’a
E/S(a)
15. bagad (be-) [+c+m] [-c]
+
+
bgida (betrayal)
bgida
E/S(a)
16. šita (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
17. rada (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
(rodan) ‘tyran’
18. šalat (al)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
šlita
šlita
S(a)
šlita r/e
S
tipul
E/S(a)
S(a)
S(a)
[+c-m]
19. šalat (be-)
[+c+m] [+c-m]
-
-
šlita
20. gaval (be-)
[-c-m] [-c]
-
-
(gvul) ‘border’
21. xalaš (al)
[-c-m] [-c]
-
+
S
22. hiškif (al)
[-c-m] [-c]
-
+
S
23. hišpi’a (al)
[+c] [-c]
+
+
hašpa’a
24. iyem (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
iyum
25. pakad (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
pkuda (an order)
E/S(a)
26. asar (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
+
isur
E
-
+
emuna (belief)
S
27. he’emin (be) [-c+m] [-m]
S
S
iyum
E/S(a)
109
28. batax (be-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
-
29. nitla (be-)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
-
tlut (dependency)
S
30. xašad (be-)
[-c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
xašad (suspicion)
S
31. pikpek (be-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
pikpuk
32. samax (al)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
33. kine (be-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
kin’a
S
34. rixem (al)
[-c+m] [-c]?
-
+
(raxamim) ‘pity’
S
35. hibit (be-/al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
(mabat) ‘glance’
E/S(a)
36.histakel (be/al) [+c+m] [-c]
-
+
37. hivxin (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
38. hitbonen (be) [+c+m] [-c]
-
+
39. cafa (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
40. baha (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
41. iyen (be-)
S
pikpuk
S
S
E/S(a)
havxana
E
hitbonenut
hitbonenut
S(a)
+
cfiya
cfiya
S(a)
-
+
behiya
behiya
S(a)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
(a’in) ‘eye’
iyun
S(a)
42. himer (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
himur
43. hegen (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
hagana
hagana
S(a)
44. šamar (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
-
šmira
šmira
S(a)
45. yara (be-/al)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
+
yeriya
yeri
E/S(a)
46. hilšin (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
halšana
halšana r/e
E
47. he’erim (al)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
48. ximer (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
(xamor) ‘donkey’
49. davak (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
dvekut (devek) ‘glue’
dvekut
S(a)
50. cided (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
cidud (cad) ‘side’
cidud
S(a)
51. zinev (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
-
(zanav) ‘tail’
zinuv
E/S(a)
52. hiclif (be-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
haclafa
E/S(a)
53. xafac (be-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
(xefec) ‘wish’
S
54. xašak (be-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
(xešek) ‘wish’
S
55. dan (be-)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
diyun
56. hitxaret (al)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
xarata
57. hit’akeš (al)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
hit’akšut
58. hit’abel (al)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
(evel)
59. hit’anyen (be)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
-
hit’anyenut
hit’anyenut
S
60. hitkaša (be-)
[-c+m] [-c-m]
-
-
hitkašut
hitkašut
S
61. hitbayeš (be) [-c+m] [-m]
-
-
(buša) ‘embarrassment’
62. histapek (be) [-c+m] [-m]
-
-
histapkut
histapkut
E/S
63. hit’ahev (be) [-c+m] [-c-m]
-
-
hitahavut
hitahavut
E
64. he’emin (le-) [-c+m] [-c]
-
+
(emuna) ‘belief’
E/S
65. kine (le-)
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
kin’a
S
66. hitpalel (le-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
(tfila) ‘a prayer’
E/S(a)
E/S(a)
E
E/S
diyun
S(a)
E/S
hit’akšut
E/S
S
S
110
67. serev (le-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
seruv
seruv
E
68. hitmaser (le) [-c+m] [-c]
-
-
hitmasrut
hitmasrut
E
69. hitga’age’a
[-c+m] [-c]
-
+
(ga’agu’a)
70. azar (le-)
[+c+m] [-c]
+
+
ezra
ezra
E/S(a)
71. sagad (le-)
[+c+m] [-c]
-
+
sgida
sgida
S(a)
72. paxad (me-)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
paxad (fear)
S
73. salad (me-)
[-c+m] [-m]
-
+
slida
S
S
(le-/el)
*Although ‘isolated root’ means occurrence in one verbal template, if a verb undergoes passive, and
the passive template happens to be the only additional template the verb occurs in, the verb is viewed
as isolated root.
**Deverbal nominalizations which are not glossed individually are parallel to English –ing nominals of
the corresponding verbs. If a verb has a nominal source, it is given in parentheses.
***I adopt here the two-way aspectual classification (Hinrichs 1995), where accomplishments and
achievements are classified as Events, whereas activities and states as States. Since there seem to be no
PP-verbs which denote accomplishments, Events coincide with achievements.
69
In case a verb is
classified as denoting State, and it is activity denoting verb, it is marked S(a).
Table 3. The properties of 30 Accusative verbs
Property
Θ roles
Passive Isolated
Verb
Nominalizations
Root
r
Aspect
e
1. baxan (tested)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
bxina, boxan
bxina
E/S
2. axal (ate)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
axila, oxel (‘food’)
axila
E/S
3. haras (destroyed)
[+c] [-c-m]
+
+
harisa, heres
harisa
E
4. kara (read)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
kri’a
kri’a
E/S
5. ahav (loved)
[-c+m] [-c-m]
+
+
ahava
ahava
S
6. sana (hated)
[-c+m] [-c-m]
-
-
sin’a (’hatred’)
sin’a
S
7. pirnes (provided)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
-
-
parnasa (??‘income’)
8. harag (killed)
[+c] [-c-m]
+
+
hariga, hereg
hariga
E
9. gilgel (rolled)
[+c] [-c-m]
+
-
gilgul, galgal (‘wheel’)
gilgul
S
10. safar (counted)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
+
sfira, mispar (‘number’)
sfira
S
11. šibeš (spoiled)
[+c] [-c-m]
+
-
šibuš
šibuš
E
12. hika (beaten)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
+
maka ‘(a stroke’)
haka’a
E/S
13. šavar (broke)
[+c] [-c-m]
-
-
švira, šever (‘fructure’)
švira
E
69
S
A similar generalization is made in Neeleman (1997, footnote 10). Neeleman points out that verbs
with an ‘affected’ object are never PP-verbs.
111
14. kilkel (spoiled)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
kilkul
kilkul
E
15. heri’ax (smelled)
[+m] [-c-m]
-
-
re’ax (‘smell’)
haraxa
E/S
16.hexnis (brought in)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
haxnasa, kenes (‘gathering’)
haxnasa
E
17.hivri’ax (smuggled)
[+c] [-c-m]
+
-
havraxa
havraxa
E
18. badak (checked)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
+
bdika, bedek
bdika
E/S
19. kibed (honoured)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
kibud
kibud
S
20.šixne’a (convinced)
[+c+m] [-c+m]
+
-
šixnu’a
šixnu’a
E
21. hirgiz (angered)
[+c] [-c+m]
-
-
rogez (‘anger’)
E
22. hid’ig (worried)
[+c] [-c+m]
-
-
de’aga (‘worry’)
E/S
23. hirxik (removed)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
harxaka, merxak (‘distance’)
harxaka
E
24. kirev (put closer)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
kiruv, kirva (‘closeness’)
kiruv
E
25. hirvi’ax (gained)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
+
revax (‘profit’)
26. nika (cleaned)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
nikuy, nikayon
nikuy
E/S
27. he’eliv (insulted)
[+c] [-c+m]
+
-
ha’alava, elbon (‘an insult’)
ha’alava
E
28.xišev (calculated)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
xišuv, xežbon (‘calculus’)
xišuv
E/S
29. hidbik (attached)
[+c+m] [-c-m]
+
-
hadbaka, devek (‘glue’)
hadbaka
E
30. hitri’ax (bothered)
[+c+m] [-c+m]
-
-
tirxa (‘bother’)
Table 4. Summary of findings
The group of verbs
The properties
/+c
/+m
Passive
Isolated root
Nominalizations:
r/e
Ø
r
Aspect:
S
S/E
S
Θ1
E
PP-verbs
Acc. verbs
70%
75%
20%
70%
90%
70%
75%
25%
40%
11%
49%
83%
0%
17%
85%
34%
51%
53%
33%
20%
17%
47%
E
S
112
4. Locative, Directional and Dative Ps
In the literature, the constructions to be discussed in this chapter (1) are often
treated as a group, apart from PP-verb constructions.
(1)
a. bart sam et ha-sefer leyad/mitaxat la-šulxan
Locative
Bart put Acc the-book near/under to+the table
b. bart natan
et ha-pras le-lisa
Dative
Bart gave Acc the-prize to-Lisa
c. ha-pakid hifna
et
rina la-menahel
Directional
the-clerk directed Acc Rina to+the-manager
Indeed, there are verbs that occur with both the Directional and Locative PPs (Dan
threw the ball/ran under the table/to Mary), suggesting that these PPs are alike.1 Note,
however that the Directional and Locative PPs are not interchangeable in (1a) and (1c)
(e.g. *Bart put the book to Lisa, *The clerk directed Lisa near the table).
In fact, Locative PPs differ from both the Directional and Dative PPs; the latter are
restricted to a certain kind of verbs (roughly speaking, verbs of motion or transfer),
whereas the former can combine with almost any verb (2).2 Thus, the relation between
the Directional and Dative PPs and the corresponding verbs cannot be treated on a par
with the relation of the Locative PP and the verb.
(2) Bart found/ate/crushed the candy (under the table/*to Lisa/*from Tel Aviv).
Among the constructions in (1), the Locative construction (1a) clearly differs from
the PP-verb constructions analyzed in chapter 3, as it admits any locative preposition,
rather than a particular one (cf. Marantz 1984).
1
Directional PPs include in addition to Goal and Source PPs, headed by to and from, respectively, also
Route PPs (e.g. through, via). The latter are excluded from the present discussion. For the justification of
the exclusion see section 4.3.
2
There are verbs, mostly stative psych-verbs such as love and hate, which cannot be modified by a
Locative PP:
(i)
*Bart loved the candy under the table.
113
In a variety of languages, among them Hebrew, English and French, the Dative
and Directional (goal) PPs are headed by the same preposition (le-, to, à). Consequently,
the Dative and Directional constructions (1b,c) may appear to be non-distinct, and rather
similar to PP-verb constructions.
The Dative and Directional constructions can indeed be quite similar in some
languages (e.g. English), but in Hebrew, for instance, they are clearly distinguished.
Thus, unlike le- (‘to’), which can be either Dative or Directional, the Hebrew
preposition el (‘to’) is purely Directional, occurring in the Directional construction but
not in the Dative one (3):
(3)
a. bart natan
et ha-pras le-/*el lisa
Bart gave Acc the-prize to-Lisa
b. ha-pakid hifna
et
rina el ha-/la-menahel
the-clerk directed Acc Rina to the-/to+the-manager
Consider also the binding facts in (4) which indicate that the Dative and
Directional constructions in Hebrew are not identical:
(4)
a. dani natan et ha-pras
le-acmoi/*loi
Dan gave Acc the-prize to-himself /*to+him
b. be-ta’ut,
ha-pakidi hifna
et
rina el-avi/??el acmoi
By mistake, the-clerk directed Acc Rina to-him/to himself
“By mistake, the clerk directed Rina to *him/himself.”
In light of the above, the goal of this chapter is to establish the function of the
Dative, Locative and Directional Ps. Comparing the constructions in a systematic way I
will show that in Hebrew each of the Ps is distinct (but in English, for instance, the
Dative and Directional Ps will be shown to perform the same function).
The chapter is structured as follows: Based on the binding phenomena, section 4.1
draws a distinction between the Dative P on the one hand, and the Directional and
Locative Ps on the other. In section 4.2 the Dative P is argued to realize the PC function.
Focusing on Hebrew, the Dative le- is shown to be an affix on D, rather than an
independent syntactic P-head. Section 4.3 establishes that the Directional P in Hebrew
114
is distinct from both the Dative and Locative Ps. It is analyzed as PR, but not a fullyfledged one. In section 4.4 the Locative P is shown to have the status of an independent
predicate (PR), from which the unique ability of Locative PPs to form Small Clause
(SC) predicates and clausal modifiers (in Hebrew) is argued to follow.
4.1 The binding distinction
Consider the following binding paradigm, where each construction is tested for
binding between the DP introduced by P and the DP subject, and for binding between
the DP introduced by P and the direct object DP.
Locative
(5)
a. barti sam et ha-sukarya leyad-oi /?*leyad acmoi
Bart put Acc the-candy near-him/near himself
b. af exad lo yaxol lasim xefeci
al acmoi/leyad acmoi//*al-avi/*leyad-oi
No one not can put [an] object on itself/near itself//*on-it/*near-it
(Oren Beit-Arie 1994)
Directional
(6)
a. be-ta’ut,
ha-pakidi hifna
et
rina el-avi/??el acmoi
By mistake, the-clerk directed Acc Rina to-him/to himself
“By mistake, the clerk directed Rina to *him/himself.”
b. ba-xalom,
bart hifna et lisai el acmai/*ele-hai
“In his dream Bart directed Lisa to herself/*to-her.”
Dative
(7)
a. dani natan et
ha-pras le-acmoi/*loi
Dani gave Acc the-prize to-himself /*him
b. dan hisbir
et rinai
Dan explained Acc Rina
le-acmai/*lai
to-herself /*her
115
As is well known, the standard formulation of the binding conditions (Chomsky
1981) entails strict complementarity between anaphors and pronoun. Although this is
indeed true in many contexts, there are contexts, where complementarity breaks down;
most notably with Locative PPs (see the English gloss of (5a)) (Hestvik 1991, Reinhart
and Reuland 1993).3 Therefore, I will examine the binding facts attested in the Locative,
Directional and Dative constructions, using the approach to binding developed in
Reinhart and Reuland 1993 (“Reflexivity”, henceforth).
In order to make the following discussion as clear as possible, a short summary of
the relevant parts of “Reflexivity” is necessary.
The central claim advanced in “Reflexivity” is that the binding conditions (A and
B) should be conditions on the well-formedness and the interpretation of reflexive
predicates, rather than on syntactic structure. Further, “Reflexivity” draws a distinction
between semantic and syntactic predicates, and argues that while condition B applies to
semantic predicates, condition A applies to syntactic ones. Conditions A and B are
given in (8) and (9), respectively. They are followed by the necessary definitions.
(8) Condition A
A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive.
(9) Condition B
A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked.
(10) Definitions
a. The syntactic predicate formed of (a head ) P is P, all its syntactic arguments,
and an external argument of P (subject).
The syntactic arguments of P are the projections assigned θ-role or Case by P.
b. The semantic predicate formed of P is P and all its arguments at the relevant
semantic level.
c. A predicate is reflexive iff two of its arguments are coindexed.
d. A predicate (formed of P) is reflexive-marked iff either P is lexically reflexive
or one of P’s arguments is a SELF anaphor.
3
I have no explanation as to why in Hebrew the anaphor in (5a) is much worse than in its English
counterpart.
116
Let me illustrate briefly the effect of condition B, as this condition is designed to
account for the non-complementary distribution of pronouns and anaphors, and
therefore is the most relevant for the account of the binding facts attested in the
constructions under discussion (5)-(7). Thus consider (11):
Dani likes jokes about himi/himselfi
(11)
In “Reflexivity” the grammaticality of the pronoun in (11) is accounted for as
follows: The coindexed arguments Dan and the pronoun him are arguments of two
different predicates. Dan is the argument of the verb like, whereas him is the argument
of the noun jokes. The pronoun is grammatical, as none of the predicates is reflexive. In
other words, the occurrence of the pronoun in (11) is not ruled out by condition B.
With this being clarified, let us turn to the binding facts presented in (5)-(7),
repeated for convenience below:
Locative
(12) a. barti sam et ha-sukarya leyad-oi /?*leyad acmoi
Bart put Acc the-candy near-him/near himself
b. af exad lo yaxol lasim
xefeci al acmoi/leyad acmoi//*al-avi/*leyad-oi
No one not can put [an] objecti on itself/near itself//*on-it/*near-iti
(Oren Beit-Arie 1994)
Directional
(13)
a. be-ta’ut,
ha-pakidi hifna
et
rina el-avi/??el acmoi
By mistake, the-clerk directed Acc Rina to-him/to himself
“By mistake, the clerk directed Rina to *him/himself.”
b. ba-xalom,
bart hifna et lisai el acmai/*ele-hai
“In his dream, Bart directed Lisa to herself/*to her.”
Dative
(14)
a. dani natan et
ha-pras le-acmoi/*loi
Dani gave Acc the-prize to-himself /*him
117
b. dan hisbir
et rinai
Dan explained Acc Rinai
le-acmai/*lai
to-herself /*her
.
The subject DP in each of the constructions is undoubtedly the argument of the
verb. Thus, the fact that the DP introduced by the Dative P has to be reflexive (14a)
indicates that this DP and the subject DP are co-arguments of the Dative verb.
Therefore, I conclude that the Dative P does not count as a (semantic) predicate. If it
did, given condition B (9), the occurrence of a pronoun should have been grammatical,
contrary to facts. This suggests that the Dative P is an instance of PC, rather than PR (the
same conclusion is reached in Kayne 1984 for the English Dative preposition to).
In the Locative and Directional constructions the DP introduced by the
corresponding prepositions is a pronoun, rather than a reflexive (12a), (13a). This
indicates that the DP introduced by P and the subject DP are not co-arguments.4 Since
the latter is the argument of the verb, it is reasonable to conclude that the former is the
argument of the preposition. In other words, given condition B (9), in these
constructions P is certainly a (semantic) predicate, as it has at least one argument (the
internal one). Recall that I assume that prepositions which are interpreted as predicates
realize PR (see 2.2.2). Hence Directional and Locative Ps are PR.
Note that in all the constructions presented above a DP introduced by P has to be
reflexive in order to corefer with the object DP ((12b), (13b), (14b)). Given
“Reflexivity”, this can be taken to indicate that the DP introduced by P and the object
DP are co-arguments. In the Dative construction these DPs are co-arguments of the
Dative verb, as it is the only predicate in the construction. But in the Locative and
Directional constructions the DP introduced by P is the argument of P, not of the verb.
Therefore, the object DP and the DP introduced by P appear to be co-arguments not of
the verb, but of P. Viewed this way, Locative and Directional Ps may be construed as
syntactic predicates (10). I will return to this issue in 4.3 and 4.4.
Additional support for the distinction argued for in this section between the
semantic status of the Locative and Directional Ps on the one hand, and the Dative P
on the other hand is provided in (15). The ability of the Locative and Directional PPs
to function as main predicates (i.e. predicates across copula) (15a,b), as opposed to the
4
See Reinhart and Reuland (1993) for the account of the marginal occurrence of the reflexive in the
Locative and Directional constructions.
118
inability of the Dative PP to do so (15c), is fully consistent with the conclusion that
Locative and Directional Ps are predicates, whereas the Dative P is not.5
(15)
a. ha-sefer mitaxat le-šulxan
the-book under
to-table
“The book is under a table.”
b. ?ha-tiyul hu le-hodu6
the-trip he to-India
Intended meaning: “The trip is to India.”
c. *ha-sefer hu le-rina
(possible only if le- is interpreted as ‘for’)
the-book he to-Rina
To summarize, the P in the Dative construction, unlike the Locative and the
Directional Ps, is not a predicate. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that its function
is not PR, but rather PC. In the following section I will establish this conclusion and
address in more detail the syntactic realization of the Dative P, focusing mainly on
Hebrew. I will return to the Locative and Directional PPs in the subsequent sections.
4.2 The Dative P-morpheme in Hebrew
In this section I focus mainly on the syntactic realization of the Hebrew Dative Pmorpheme le- (‘to’). Before I address the issue, the following clarification is in place.
On the assumption that the Dative P is PC, the question arises why the Dative
construction is analyzed together with Directional and Locative constructions, rather
than with PP-verb constructions (chapter 3).
As already mentioned, in some languages, including Hebrew, English, French and
German, the preposition occurring in the Dative and Directional constructions is the
same (e.g. to). This is probably one of the reasons that these constructions seem
identical. However, a systematic comparison of the constructions conducted in this
5
The grammaticality contrast between (15a) and (15b) is significant. I will return to it in section 4.3.
I will address the distribution of the Hebrew pronominal copula (hu in (15b,c)) in section 4.4. For now it
will suffice to mention that it is obligatory with all PPs except the Locative ones (15a).
6
119
chapter shows that they should be distinguished. Some of the distinctions have been
already mentioned (e.g. the binding facts in 4.1), and additional ones will be presented
below (and in section 4.3). It will be apparent from the following discussion that the
Hebrew Dative construction does not include a PP. This property of the Hebrew Dative
construction distinguishes it from the Directional one, but also from the Hebrew PPverb constructions discussed in chapter 3. Recall also that in chapter 3 I focused on
Hebrew PP-verbs that occur with the prepositions be- (’in’) and al (‘on’). The majority
of these verbs assign an internal [-c] cluster (Goal), similarly to the ditransitive Dative
verbs discussed in this chapter. But while in PP-verb constructions the interpretation of
this theta-role varies, depending on the verb, in the Dative construction it is interpreted
invariably as a Recipient.7
Thus, let me first provide more evidence that the Dative le- in Hebrew is indeed a
purely Case related P (PC).
4.2.1 The Dative le- is PC
The P-morpheme le- (‘to’) in Hebrew is highly ambiguous (Berman 1982). Only
the Dative le- is argued here to realize PC, rather than PR. In this respect, note that unlike
the Directional le-, for instance, which is paraphrasable by a (semantically) more
specific preposition el, the Dative le- has no synonym.8 On the assumption that the
Directional le- is a predicate, whereas the Dative one is not, it is not surprising that the
former has a synonym, but the latter does not.
Further, consider the following data, featuring the Dative le- (‘to’) in the causative
construction headed by natan (lit. ‘gave’, here, ‘let’):9
(16)
natati le-rina lenace’ax
I+gave to-Rina to+win
“I let Rina win.”
7
See Marelj (2002) and Ten Have, Schippers, Van Steenbergen and Vlasveld (2003), where the Recipient
interpretation of [-c] in the Dative construction is argued to result from interpreting the unspecified /m as
/+m.
8
Another example is presented by the Benefactive le- (e.g. hexanti et ze le-/bišvil lisa, ‘[I] prepared this
to/for Lisa’), which is paraphrasable by bišvil (‘for’) (Berman 1982). For an enlightening study of three
kinds of Dative le-, possessive, reflexive and ethical, see Borer and Grodzinsky 1986.
9
This construction is reminiscent of the causative constructions in French and Italian, discussed and
analyzed in Kayne (2001).
120
In principle, (16) can have either a Control structure (i.e. le-rina is the object of the verb
natati), or an ECM structure (le-rina is the subject of lenace’ax). This is shown in (17a)
and (17b), respectively:
(17)
a. natati [le-rinai] [[PROi lenace’ax]]
Control
b. natati [le-rina lenace’ax]
ECM
In the ECM structure rina receives the external theta-role (Agent) from the
embedded verb lenace’ax, rather than the internal Goal role of the main verb. Thus, if
(16) indeed has an ECM structure, it will show conclusively that the relation between
the DP rina and the P-morpheme le- is not semantic, supporting the claim that the
Dative le- is best analyzed as a Case-related element (PC). The following two tests
(suggested to me by Idan Landau p.c.) show that sentences like (16) can be analyzed
both as Control and as ECM constructions.
The first test exploits the observation that in Hebrew Control structures, arbitrary
Dative controllers can be omitted (see Landau (2000) and references cited therein). This
is exemplified in (18a):
(18)
a. dan hici’a
(le-ovdav)
lifto’ax bi-švita
Dan suggested to-employees-his to+open in-strike
“Dan suggested to his employees to start a strike.”
Note further that noten (‘lets’) is actually lexically ambiguous between ‘allow’
(synonymous with ifšer) and ‘let’.10 When it means ‘allow’, it is an Object Control
predicate, whereas when it means ‘let’, it is an ECM predicate. Landau (2000) argues
that Object Control verbs in Hebrew take a [+human] DP. Thus, the Control/ECM
distinction can be highlighted by using a [-human] Dative DP. More specifically, since
the internal theta-role of ‘allow’ can be realized by a [+human] DP only, a [-human] DP
will force the ECM reading of natan (‘let’).
This is shown in (18b) and (18c),
respectively:
10
Ifšer (‘allowed’), unlike natan, is unambiguously Object Control verb.
121
b. (etmol)
dan natan/ifšer (le-ovdav)
(yesterday) Dan allowed
lifto’ax bi-švita
(to-employees-his) to+open in-strike
“(Yesterday) Dan allowed his employees to start a strike.”
c. ha-xomer
ha-ze lo noten *(la-bad)
the-substance the-that not let
lehitkavec
(to+the-fabric) to+shrink
“This substance does not let the fabric shrink.”
In (18b) the Dative argument ‘his employees’ is [+human], and therefore does not
force the ECM interpretation of natan (‘let’).
Thus natan can be interpreted as
‘allowed’ which has two internal arguments: Goal (the Dative argument) and Theme
(CP). Given the omission of arbitrary Dative controllers, ‘his employees’, being the
(Dative) controller of PROarb, can be omitted in (18b). The omission of the Dative
argument ‘the fabric’ is impossible in (18c), since being [-human], it forces the ECM
interpretation of noten (‘lets’). Under this interpretation of noten (‘lets’), ‘the fabric’ is
the (external) argument of the embedded verb lehitkavec (‘to shrink’), and therefore
cannot be omitted.
The second test is based on idiom chunks. DPs which are idiom chunk have no
independent reference, namely, they can be (quasi) arguments of the idiom’s predicate
only. Thus, we expect an idiom chunk to be possible with noten, if noten is an ECM
verb (19a), but impossible with ifšer which is a Control predicate (19b). This seems to
be correct (the underlined part is the idiomatic one):
(19)
a. ?gil natan
la-kvisa
ha-meluxlexet lacet haxuca
Gil gave (let) to+the-laundry the-dirty
to+get out
“Gil let the dirty laundry to get out.”
b. *gil ifšer
la-kvisa
ha-meluxlexet lacet haxuca
Gil allowed to+the-laundry the-dirty
to+get out
“Gil allowed the dirty laundry to get out.”
The grammatical status of (19a) indicates that the nominal phrase (the idiom
chunk) la-kvisa ha-meluxlexet which follows natan receives its (quasi) theta-role not
122
from natan, but from the embedded predicate.11 This is consistent with the ECM
analysis of natan (‘let’). In contrast, this phrase has to be interpreted as the Goal
argument of the Control verb ifšer (‘allowed’) in (19b), resulting in ungrammaticality.
The above tests show that sentences like (16), featuring the causative natan (‘let’),
can be analyzed both as Control and as ECM constructions. The ECM analysis of (16)
indicates clearly that the relation between the Dative le- and its DP complement is not
semantic, as the DP introduced by le- is not the internal Goal argument of natan, but
rather the external argument of the embedded verb. The lack of the semantic relation
between le- and its DP complement supports the claim that the Dative P-morpheme lein Hebrew is an instance of PC.
There is independent evidence that le- in Hebrew can function as a purely Case
related P. Consider the occurrence of le- within a Locative PP in (20):
(20)
a. ha-sefer
mitaxat la-šulxan /ha-šulxan.
the-book [is] under to+the-table/the-table
b. ha-sefer
mitaxat *(le)-šulxan kolšehu.
the-book [is] under
to-table
some
“The book is under some table.”
The appearance of le- in the above context is interesting and rather puzzling on its
own. For our purposes it is enough to note that its occurrence is optional with a definite
complement (20a), and tends to be obligatory with the indefinite one (20b). The mere fact
that le- can be optional suggests that the DP following le- is not the argument of le-.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the function of le- in this context is PC. As for
the question why the occurrence of le- here is optional, let me propose the following.12
It is argued in Siloni (2002) that Ps in Hebrew, similarly to Ns, form a Construct
State (CS) with their complement (e.g. lifney-(ha)-ši’ur, ‘before (the) class’, –ey is a
suffix typical of plural Construct heads). Following Siloni (2002), I assume that CS is the
configuration in which structural Case is checked at PF. It seems that in PPs headed by a
complex P without CS morphological marking (e.g. mitaxat (’under’)), the ‘burden’ of
11
I have no explanation for the slight marginality of (19a). In fact, for some speakers the sentence indeed
is fully grammatical.
12
I thank Arhonto Terzi (p.c.) for drawing my attention to this question.
123
CS formation is put on ha- (‘the’).13 If ha- is absent, CS cannot be formed and instead a
Free State (FS) has to be formed with le- in order to check the Case of the nominal. Note
that Ps such as lifney (‘before’), which have the CS suffix -ey, do not admit le- (lifney
(*le)-ši’ur, ‘before (*to) class’). That the occurrence of le- is indeed related to Casechecking in the FS is shown in (21). The Hebrew P ‘around’ has both the Free form
misaviv (21a), and the Construct form sviv (21b). Crucially, le- is obligatory in (21a), and
ungrammatical in (21b). The contrast in (21) strongly suggests that the function of le- is
related to Case in the FS, thereby supporting the claim that the Dative le- is PC.14
(21)
a. misaviv
la-bayit/*ha-ba’it
around-FS to+the-house/the-house
b. sviv
*la-bayit/ha-ba’it
around-CS to+the-house/the-house
4.2.2 No PP in the Hebrew Dative construction
Various arguments indicate that the Dative P is not a predicate but rather a Caserelated P (PC). Given that, there are two possible representations of the Goal argument
in the Dative construction (22):15 (As our discussion focuses on the Goal argument of
the Dative verb, in what follows I will examine the lower VP of the VP-shell.)
(22)
a. [VP DPTh [ V PPGoal]]
b. [VP DPTh [ V DPGoal]]
13
This is, of course, an informal state of affairs. The account of how and why ha- resolves the ‘burden’ of
CS formation is beyond the scope of the study.
14
See Appendix to this chapter where it is proposed that the Dative le- is, in fact, either a Case-checker
(PC) or a Case-marker.
15
I assume that a Dative verb such as give materializes syntactically in a Larsonian VP-shell (Larson
1988a). Thus the external argument (Agent) of a Dative verb is merged in the specifier of the higher VP,
whereas the internal ones (Theme, Goal) are merged in the lower VP. Note, that although the VP-shell
realization might appear to be identical to the syntactic realization which employs the little v projection
(above the lexical projection of a verb), this is not the case. In the VP-shell both the lower and the higher
instances of V are lexical, namely the VP-shell is a projection of a lexical V. Consequently, the external
theta-role (e.g. Agent) is assumed to be part of the verbal theta-grid (see 1.2). In contrast, since the little v
is assumed to be a separate functional (verbal) head, which introduces the external argument of the verb,
this argument is not considered as part of the theta-grid of the verb (Chomsky 1995, among many others,
following Hale and Keyser 1992, 1994). Further, given the conclusion regarding the semantic status of
the Dative P in the previous section, an a priori possible analysis in which the Dative P heads a Small
Clause (SC) (e.g. Den Dikken 1995) seems inappropriate for the P in the Dative construction. It is,
however, plausible for the Locative construction. I will come back to this issue in section 4.4.1.
124
Both (22a) and (22b) are possible syntactic realizations of the Goal argument
across languages. The difference between them is the presence vs. the absence of the PP
(see the discussion of the realization of the Goal ([-c]) in 3.5.2). Languages such as
Russian, which do not have a Dative preposition, and mark the Dative Case
morphologically on the DP are the most natural candidates to utilize the option (22b).
Hebrew, which is the focus of the study, presents an intriguing case, as it has a
distinct Dative P-morpheme le- (’to’), and therefore one could expect that its Dative
construction would have the structure in (22a). However, in what follows I will argue
that the Dative le- is a lexical prepositional affix on D, and does not project a PP.
Therefore in the Hebrew Dative construction the Goal is realized as a DP (22b). The
distinction drawn here is between syntactic affixes which instantiate functional heads
such as T (as in Lasnik’s (1999) chapter 5) and affixes which are adjoined presyntactically to a functional/lexical head and are not projected syntactically.
Before I present the evidence in favor of this claim, I would like to emphasize that
analyzing the Dative le- in Hebrew as an affix, rather than as a full syntactic P-head, is
fully consistent with the functional classification of the category P. As opposed to the
members of the core lexical categories, N, V and A, which are not affixal, members of
the functional ones can be affixal or even phonetically null (see 2.1).16 Further, since the
Dative P has no semantic contribution, it is not forced to be analyzed as a syntactic head
projecting an XP (Chomsky 2001). It may, however, be forced by the language specific
ones. As will be shown below, the Dative preposition to in English is not affixal, as
opposed to its Hebrew counterpart.17
Consider now the evidence which supports the claim that the Dative le- in Hebrew
is not a syntactic P-head, and therefore there is no PP in the Hebrew Dative
construction.
16
But see the analysis of the Hungarian infinitival (‘roll-up’) clusters in Bartos (to appear), where certain
Hungarian verbs, referred to as ‘light verbs’, are viewed as suffixes.
17
There are additional factors which should be considered in order to determine whether a given language
realizes the Goal argument as a PP or as a DP. In addition to the affixal status of the prepositional
morpheme mentioned in the text, the existence of morphological Case in a given language is probably
another relevant factor. It may also be relevant that there are languages which mark Goals in the Dative
construction only morphologically, without an overt P (e.g. Russian), whereas others (e.g. German) have
both the prepositional and the morphological options. Bayer, Bader and Meng (2001) argue that nonprepositional Goal arguments in the Dative construction in German have an additional functional layer
KP, which has structural effects similar to those of a PP.
125
(i) Modified conjunction
As noted in Landau (1994), only conjoined DPs allow either one adjectival
modifier or two modifiers (23). Conjoined PPs allow only the option with two
modifiers, using one modifier for both conjuncts results in ungrammaticality, as shown
in (24) and (25). Note that le- in (24) is not Dative, as the construction is Directional.
(25) illustrates the Hebrew PP-verb construction, in which the small preposition is
argued to be a syntactic P-head projecting a PP (see 3.3.2).
(23) a. ha-mora
berxa et
ha-yeled ha-xadaš ve-et ha-yalda ha-xadaša
the-teacher greeted Acc the-boy the-new
b. ha-mora
berxa et
ha-yeled ve-et
and-Acc the-girl the-new
ha-yalda ha-xadašim
the-teacher greeted Acc the-boy and-Acc the-girl
(24) *dan hifna
et
rina la- menahel
ve-la-pkidot
the-new-pl.
ha-adivim
Dan directed Acc Rina to+the-director and-to+the-clerks the-polite-pl.
(25) *dan somex rak al ha-menahel ve-al ha-axayot
ha-menusim
Dan relies only on the-director and-on the-nurses the-experienced-pl.
Importantly, modification of conjoined Goal arguments in the Dative construction (26)
patterns with conjoined DPs (23), rather than PPs (24), (25), namely both options are
grammatical:
(26) a. dan natan et ha-pras la-yeled
ha-mavrik ve-la-yalda
ha-mavrika
Dan gave Acc the-prize to+the-boy the-brilliant and-to+the-girl the-brilliant
b. dan natan et ha-pras la-yeled
ve-la-yalda
ha-mavrikim
Dan gave Acc the-prize to+the-boy and-to+the-girl the-brilliant-pl.
Given that APs are modifiers of nominal projections only (modifiers of PPs are
adverbial in nature), the grammaticality of the modified conjunction in (26b) strongly
supports the claim that the Goal argument in the Hebrew Dative construction is a DP.
126
(ii) Binding
In the Hebrew Dative construction the Goal argument can bind the Theme
anaphor, if it precedes it (27a) (Borer and Grodzinsky 1986). This kind of binding is
impossible in the non-Dative construction (27c):
(27)
a. dan her’a
la-tinoket
et
acma
Dative
Dan showed to+the-baby Acc herself
b. dan her’a
et
ha-tinoket le-acma
Dan showed Acc the-baby to-herself
c.*ha-pakid hifna
el dani et acmoi
Directional
the-clerk directed to Dan Acc himself
d. ha-pakid hifna
et dani el acmoi
the-clerk directed Acc Dan to himself
On the familiar assumption that an anaphor requires c-command by an antecedent,
the grammaticality of (27a) indicates that the Goal DP c-commands the Theme
anaphor.18 This conclusion is consistent with the assumption that there is no PP above
the Goal DP. Note, however, that it is equally consistent with the familiar assumption
that there is a PP, but it does not block c-command (see chapter 3, fn. 28). Therefore
this argument, by itself, cannot be taken as conclusive evidence for the absence of a PP
in the Dative construction, but it may be viewed as an additional support.
18
Landau (1994) argues that the fact that Hebrew has both options shown in (i) is not due to the fact that
Hebrew has relatively free word order, but rather that Hebrew has Dative shift, similarly to English.
(Another possibility to account for the binding of the Theme by the Goal in (ib) would be to assume two
distinct base-generations, which underlie the two orders, rather than movement.)
(i)
a. dan natan et ha-sefer le-rina
Dan gave Acc the-book to-Rina
b. dan natan le-rina et ha-sefer
Dan gave to-Rina Acc the-book
Landau (1994) shows that what underlies the contrast in properties between the Dative and the nonDative (locative, directional) constructions featuring le- is the categorial status of the le-DP sequence. It is
a DP in the Dative construction, but PP otherwise. For a different view based on a different set of
assumptions regarding the attested orders, not necessarily in the Dative construction, see Belletti and
Shlonsky 1995. Note that the question whether Hebrew has or does not have Dative shift is orthogonal to
the present inquiry, for some further discussion of this matter see the Appendix.
127
(iii) P-stranding
Finally, consider a very different kind of evidence, which can be easily construed
as an additional argument for the claim that the Dative le- in Hebrew is not a syntactic
head P. Armon-Lotem (2000), studying attrition in the early stages of bilingual
development, compares the use and misuse of resumptive pronouns and stranded
prepositions in L1 Hebrew and L2 English. The findings reported in her paper show that
resumptive pronouns are susceptible to early attrition, namely they are dropped and Pstranding is used, even though it is ungrammatical in Hebrew:
(28)
a. ha-seret
še-hitkavanti
le…
the-movie that-[I] meant to
“The movie that I meant…”
b. ha-makom še-halaxnu
el…
the-place that-[we] went to
“The place we went to…”
The drop of resumptive pronouns and use of stranded prepositions exemplified
in (28) excludes Goal arguments of Dative verbs (Indirect Object, in Armon-Lotem’s
terminology). As pointed out by Armon-Lotem, the findings make clear that “…the
status of Dative Goal arguments is so different that it does not let itself to attrition as
easily as the PPs do.” (p.65). Following Hornstein and Weinberg (1981), stranding in
English occurs upon reanalysis between two syntactic heads, V and P. If, as argued for
here, the Dative le- is not a syntactic P-head, it cannot be reanalyzed with the verb and
stranded.
Note that although the Dative le- is not a P-head, it is possible to use a single le- in
the following conjunctions:
(29)
a. natati matanot le-[yeladim] ve-[yeladot]
[I] gave presents to-boys
and-girls
b. natati matanot le-[yeladim yafim ] ve-[yeladot nexmadot]
[I] gave presents to-boys beautiful and-girls nice
c. natati matanot [le-yeladim (yafim)] ve-[le-yeladot (nexmadot)]
[I] gave presents to-boys beautiful
and-to-girls nice
128
Let us assume that in (29a) the coordination is between Ns, whereas in (29b)
between NPs. The fact that both the coordination of Ns and of NPs with a single le- is
possible indicates that le- is located above the NP-level. Hence, it is reasonable to
conclude that the Dative le- is affixed to D.19’ 20
The following examples support this conclusion:
(30)
a.*natati matanot le/la-[yeladim] ve-[ha-yeladot]
[I] gave presents to/to+the-boys and-the-girls
b. *natati matanot la-[yeladim (ha-xadašim)] ve-[yeladot (xadašot)]
[I] gave presents to+the-boys (the-new)
and-girls
(new)
In (30) one of the conjuncts is definite. It is commonly assumed that a definite
nominal is a DP (cf. Siloni 1997, Borer 1999, Danon 2002). Since in general it is
possible to conjoin an indefinite nominal with a definite one, I will assume that the
conjuncts in (30) are of the same syntactic category, namely DP.21 If le- is adjoined to
D, and the conjunction is between DPs, the second conjunct is beyond the scope of
le-.22
19
It is worth noting that as opposed to le-, which can introduce coordination of Ns or NPs (29a,b), the
definiteness affix ha- cannot:
(i)
a. *?ha-sfarim ve-maxbarot šel bart ne’elmu
the-books and-notebooks of Bart disappeared
“Bart’s books and notebooks have disappeared.”
b. ha-sfarim ve-ha-maxbarot šel bart ne’elmu
the-books and-the-notebooks of Bart disappeared
“Bart’s books and notebooks have disappeared.”
In (ia) it is completely impossible to interpret the second conjunct as definite. This is accounted for given
the assumption that ha-, as opposed to le-, is an affix attached to the noun itself. Therefore coordination of
two Ns is outside its scope, so to speak.
20
As reported by Arhonto Terzi (p.c.), the Dative morpheme se-/s- in Greek exhibits the same behavior
with respect to coordination as the Hebrew Dative le-. Thus it is highly suggestive that this P-morpheme
in Greek is a D-affix, similarly to the Hebrew Dative le-.
21
The status of the definite nominal as a DP in Hebrew (rather than an NP) is argued in Siloni (1997) to
derive from the affixal status of the definiteness marker ha- (‘the’) (Siloni 1994, 1997, Borer 1999, Danon
1996). Definiteness, realized as the nominal affix ha- is viewed by the mentioned authors as a syntactic
feature of D, rather than the functional head D itself. The need to check this feature forces the projection
of the DP in Siloni (1997). (See Danon 2002 where an indefinite nominal in Hebrew is argued to project
an NP, rather than a DP).
22
A potential problem for this account is presented by (i) (Tali Siloni p.c.). The conjoined nominals are
clearly DPs, as they are definite and occur in the CS (cf. Danon 1996, 2002). Nevertheless, they can be
introduced by a single le-:
129
In this respect, note that unlike le-, the Dative to in English is an independent
syntactic P-head. In (31) a single to can introduce coordination of two DPs (as opposed
to the ungrammatical (30a)):
(31)
I gave presents to the boys and (the) girls.
Based on the evidence presented above, le- as affixed to D. Given this, there are
two ways to view le-: (i) le- is the Dative Case realization. Thus the Hebrew Dative
construction is on a par with the [-c] assigning PP-verbs in Russian and English that
occur without a preposition (see 3.5.2). (ii) le- is a Dative Case-checker, namely an
instance of an affixal PC, that checks the Case of the nominal in a head-head
configuration.
There is virtually no way to distinguish between the views. It is argued in
Appendix to this chapter that, in fact, le- is ambiguous, and can be either. In what
follows I will refer to the Dative P in Hebrew as (affixal) PC, to distinguish it from the
Directional and Locative Ps, which will be shown to realize PR.
To summarize, in this section I clarified the nature of the Dative P and its syntactic
status in Hebrew. Based on various syntactic phenomena (e.g. binding, across copula
predication), I have established that the Dative P is not a predicate and therefore PC,
rather than PR. I argued further that it can be an independent syntactic head projecting a
PP in some languages (as schematized in (22a)), or an affix attached to the Goal DP (as
in (22b)). The arguments presented in this section show that the Dative P-morpheme lein Hebrew is a lexical affix on D, rather than an independent syntactic head.
(i)
a. natati matanot
le-yaldey ha-kita ve-cevet ha-morim
[I] gave presents to-children the-class and-staff the teachers
“I gave presents to the children of the class and the staff of the teachers.”
b. natati matanot le-kol ha-yeladim ve-kol ha-yeladot
[I] gave presents to-all the-boys and all the-girls
“I gave presents to all the boys and all the girls
I do not have a comprehensive account for this fact. Note, however, that unlike FS nominals, which can
occur with or without the definite prefix ha-, the head noun of a CS nominal can be never prefixed with
ha-. The question how exactly this fact is related to the problem at hand is left for future research.
130
4.3 The Directional P
Zwarts and Winter (2000), following Jackendoff (1983), divide the Directional Ps
into three classes: Source (e.g. from, out of, off); Goal (e.g. to, into, onto) and Route (e.g.
through, across, along, around, over).23 Note, however, that Route PPs differ in several
respects from Goal and Source Directional PPs: (i) Unlike Goal and Source Directional
PPs, they can occur as subjects (32) (similarly to Locative PPs). (ii) Unlike Goal and
Source Directional PPs which occur only with verbs of motion, Route PPs can also be
used for locating plural or elongated objects (33), or expressing the direction of someone’s
line of sight) (34):
(32)
a. Through the town is shorter.
b. *From Paris is nicer.
c. Under the table is a good hiding place.
(33)
a. He planted/threw the flowers along the fence.
b. He *planted/threw the flowers to/from the fence.
(34)
He looked at the kids through the window.
Finally, in many languages, Locative and Route Ps overlap lexically. For instance,
mitaxat (‘under’) and me’al (‘above’) in both Hebrew and English are either Route or
Locative Ps.24
Based on the above, in the following discussion, any reference to Directional PPs
excludes Route PPs, unless explicitly stated otherwise. In what follows I will focus on
the Directional P-morpheme le- (‘to’), putting me- (‘from’) aside. I will discuss the
difference between the two in 4.3.4.
23
As noted and illustrated in Zwarts and Winter (2000), many Directional Ps are related to Locative Ps in
systematic ways. Thus over entails above; out of, into and through entail in; from, to and via entail at and
off, onto, across entail on. The denotation of a Directional preposition is derived from the denotation of
the corresponding Locative one using the operator dir in Zwarts and Winter (2000).
24
Which Route Ps are lexically manifested and which ones are not is subject to vast cross-linguistic
variation (Zwarts and Winter 2000).
131
4.3.1 The Dative-Directional distinction: A case study of ‘send’
The verb šalax (‘sent’) is lexically ambiguous. Roughly speaking, šalax (‘sent’)
means either: (i) ‘cause x go via intermediary to a recipient’, or (ii) ‘cause x go to a
location’.25 The first meaning, in which the Goal argument is interpreted as a Recipient,
gives rise to the Dative use of šalax (‘sent’) (35a). Its Directional use correlates with the
second meaning, where the argument introduced by the Directional P is ‘spatial Goal’,
rather than a Recipient (35b).
(35)
a. dan šalax praxim le-rina
Dan sent flowers to-Rina
“Dan sent flowers to Rina.”
b. dan šalax et ha-yeled le-pariz
Dan sent Acc the-boy to-Paris
“Dan sent the boy to Paris.”
Since both the Directional and the Dative uses occur with the same selecting verb
and the same preposition le- (‘to’), the question is whether they should be analyzed
differently. I have already established that the Dative P is PC and that it differs from
both the Directional and the Locative Ps (see sections 4.1, 4.2). The following
reinforces this distinction showing that the two uses of the preposition le- (‘to’) are
syntactically distinct.
(i) The omission of the (apparent) PP is possible only in the Dative use of šalax
(‘sent’), as shown in (36a). Omission of the Directional PP with the Directional šalax
results in ungrammaticality (36b):26
25
I thank Julia Horvath (p.c.) for clarifying the relevant distinction between the two meanings of send.
The term ‘via intermediary’ is a cover term for ‘some means of transportation’.
26
The possibility to omit the Goal argument of the Dative šalax (‘sent’) is surprising, as we know that
omission of the Goal argument is not allowed with the typical Dative verb such as give:
(i)
dan natan sfarim *(le-rina)
Dan gave books (to-Rina)
Dative
The noted contrast between the Dative give and the Dative šalax (‘sent’) regarding the omission of the
Goal argument is intriguing. A full account of the facts is beyond the scope of the study. The direction
which seems promising is the following. The Dative send has a more specified meaning than give. Unlike
give (‘cause x go to a recipient’), send specifies the manner in which the Theme goes (‘cause x go via
132
(36)
a. dan šalax praxim (le-rina)
Dative
Dan sent flowers (to-Rina)
b. dan šalax et ha-yeladim *(le-pariz)
Directional
Dan sent Acc the-children (to-Paris)
(ii) Similarly to the canonic Dative verb give, Dative shift is possible, if šalax (‘sent’) is
used as Dative (i.e. the Goal argument precedes and c-commands Theme, see fn. 18 in
4.2.2). Thus (37a) can be shifted easily to (37b):
(37)
a. dan šalax praxim le-rina
Dan sent flowers to-Rina
b. dan šalax le-rina praxim
Dan sent to-Rina flowers
However, once šalax is clearly Directional, namely its Goal argument is interpreted as
spatial Goal, rather than a Recipient, the shift is infelicitous, as shown in (38b):27’ 28
(38)
a. dan šalax et rina le-pariz
Dan sent Acc Rina to-Paris
intermediary to a recipient’). This additional manner specification arguably underlies the possibility not to
realize the Goal argument of the Dative send (the sketched direction is similar in spirit to the theory
outlined in Erteschik-Shir and Rapoport in preparation, to appear).
27
The shift is possible only with a specific intonation, a strong stress on the Theme argument, or if the
Theme argument is heavy (i). Clearly, then, the shift in the Directional construction is not comparable to
the Dative shift, but rather related to Focus constructions. (For a different view see Belletti and Shlonsky
(1995)).
(i)
28
dan šalax la-pgiša
be-london et
ha-orexdin haxi tov šelo
Dan sent to+the-meeting in-London Acc the-lawyer best
his
“Dan sent his best lawyer to the meeting in London.”
The fact that English does not have either the PP DP order or the shifted version (i.e. V DPGoal DPTheme)
when the verb is Directional (*Dan sent Paris Rina), can be accounted for on the assumption (implicit in
the text) that Dative shift and Focus shift are different operations. Dative shift is arguably a Case-related
phenomenon, whereas Focus shift is clearly not. Whatever mechanisms underlie the Dative shift and give
rise to the Double Object construction in English (Kayne 1984, Larson 1988a, Den Dikken 1995, among
others), they are not operative in the Directional construction. Thus the PP DP order in the Directional
construction may, in principle, arise only from the Focus shift. However, permutation of DP PP
arguments is not possible in English, as it violates the V-DP adjacency required for the Case assignment
in English (Stowell 1981) (modulo Heavy NP-shift).
133
b. */??dan šalax le-pariz et
rina
Dan sent to-Paris Acc Rina
(iii) As already mentioned, the Directional preposition in Hebrew is either le- or el
(‘to’), as shown in (39a).29 While le- is ambiguous, occurring both in the Dative and the
Directional (39b) constructions, el can be used only in the latter; it cannot be used with
an unambiguous Dative verb (39c):
(39)
a. dan šalax et ha-yeladim le-/el-rina
Directional
Dan sent Acc the-children to-Rina
b. dan šalax et ha-sfarim le-rina/la-ktovet šel rina
Dative/Directional
Dan sent Acc the-books to-Rina/to+the-address of Rina
“Dan sent the books to Rina/to Rina’s address.”
c. *dan natan sfarim el rina
Dan gave
Dative
books to Rina
Using this difference between le- and el, it is possible to demonstrate clearly that
the Dative and the Directional uses of šalax (‘sent’) are distinct. The Dative/Directional
ambiguity of le- is resolved once we use a pronoun. Dative pronominals (la- in (40b))
cannot serve as Directionals. In other words, (40a) can mean the same as (39a), but
(40b) cannot mean ‘sent the children’, unless one can box and mail children.
(40)
a. dan šalax otam
el-eha
Directional
Dan sent them-Acc to-her
b. dan šalax la
otam/otam la
Dative
Dan sent her-Dat them-Acc/them her-Dat
29
The le-/el alternation in the Directional construction is rather free. It is worth noting that as opposed to
le-, el cannot be used to introduce Geographic Names:
(i)
a. bart nasa *el/le-london/yam ha-melax
Bart went to London/The Dead Sea
b. bart nasa el ha-ir ha-gdola/ha-yam/ /la-ir ha-gdola/yam
Bart went to the big city/the sea
134
The incompatibility of Dative pronouns with the Directional reading of šalax
(‘sent’) can be accounted for based on the analysis of the Dative le- (‘to’) in 4.2. It is not
controversial that Dative Case is the canonical Case of Recipients (not of Locations).
Although le- in Hebrew can function as a regular P, combining with a DP and forming a
PP, it was argued in section 4.2 that the Dative le- is not an independent P-head, but
rather an affix on D. Following the suggestion made by Tali Siloni (p.c.), I assume that
Dative (and Accusative) pronouns in Hebrew are picked out from the lexicon Casemarked. That is, le- + pronoun is a Dative pronoun. (The Directional P has to be
realized as el when it introduces a pronoun). Given the canonical status of Dative as the
Case assigned to Recipients, using a Dative pronoun forces the Dative reading of šalax
in (40b). This reading is very inappropriate, if the object sent is human (i.e. ‘the
children’ in (39a)).
In light of the above, it is clear that the Dative and the Directional uses of šalax
(‘sent’) are distinct. In the former the P-morpheme le- (‘to’) is the Dative le- discussed
at length in 4.2. In what follows I will focus on the analysis of the Directional P le-/el.
Since both Directional and Locative Ps are predicates, I start by comparing them.
As will become clear shortly, they differ in important respects and therefore deserve a
different syntactic treatment.
4.3.2 The Locative-Directional distinction
The binding phenomena discussed in 4.1 show that Locative and Directional Ps are
both predicates (41), (42), introducing a pronoun coindexed with the subject (Condition
B in the “Reflexivity” framework):30
Locative
(41)
barti sam et ha-sukarya leyad-oi /?*leyad acmoi
Bart put Acc the-candy near-him/near himself
30
I will return to the occurrence of an anaphor coindexed with the object in 4.3.3
135
Directional
(42)
be-ta’ut,
dani šalax et ha-yalda el-avi/??el acmoi
By mistake, Dan sent Acc the-girl
to-him/to himself
“By mistake, Dan sent the girl to *him/himself.”31
Recall, however, that while Locative PPs can combine with almost any VP, the
distribution of the Directional ones is semantically restricted (43):
(43) a. Bart ate/crushed/found/invented the candy under the table/*to Tel Aviv.
b. The mouse ran under the table/to Tel Aviv.
Moreover, we find a variety of Locative Ps (on, under, above, etc), not constrained
by the verb (Marantz 1984). In contrast, there are very few purely Directional Ps (to,
from in English, le-/el, me- in Hebrew). Lexical variety is typical of predicates. If
Directional Ps are predicates, it is unexpected that they should be so constrained by the
verb.
Finally, the Directional PP cannot combine with any nominal (44a), unlike the
Locative PP (44b):
(44)
a. *ha-yeladim le-hodu nir’u ayefim
the-children to-India looked tired
Intended meaning: “The children (traveling) to India looked tired.”
b. ha-yeladim be-hodu nir’u ayefim
the-children in-India looked tired
“The children in India looked tired.”
Even when the nominal is of the right semantic category (45), it seems that the
Directional PP does not have the same status as the Locative one. This is shown by the
grammaticality contrast in (46), where the PPs are across copula predicates.
31
There is a rather sharp contrast between Hebrew and English (see the gloss). The occurrence of the
pronoun coindexed with the subject is ungrammatical in the Directional construction in English. I will
discuss this in the next section (4.3.3).
136
(45)
ha-tiyul le-hodu haya me’anyen
the-trip to-India was interesting
“The trip to India was interesting.”
(46)
a. ?ha-tiyul hu le-hodu
the-trip he to-India
“The trip is to India.”
b. ha-yeladim be-hodu
the-children in-India
“The children are in India.”
In light of the above, Locative Ps are independent predicates. I will discuss them in
section 4.4. The status of The Directional P is different, and it is the subject matter of
the following discussion.
4.3.3 Syntactic realization
Unlike the Locative P, which defines a stative Location of an individual or an
event, the Directional P (to/from) describes a dynamic relation. More specifically, the
Directional P defines its complement (i.e. its internal argument slot, Int) as the
final/initial Location of an entity in motion.32 In other words, the Directional PP is
predicated of an entity moving along a path. Therefore, in order to be interpreted, the
Directional PP has to combine with lexical heads (i.e. Ns and Vs) that have a path
meaning component. Thus, although the Directional P is a predicate (PR), its
dependency on the selecting lexical head may suggest that it is not an independent
predicate, namely not a fully-fledged PR.
More specifically, I propose that the Directional P is unique in that its external
slot, rather than being an argument slot, forces combination with a path predicate. In the
spirit of Ackema (1995), I propose that the Directional P and the appropriate lexical
32
In Hebrew the complement of the Directional Goal P can be realized by a Locative PP or by a DP.
However, if the Directional P is le- (‘to’), rather than el (‘to’), only a DP complement is possible:
(i)
a. ha-kadur hitgalgel el/*le-mitaxat ha-mita
the-ball rolled
to-under the-bed
b. ha-kadur hitgalgel el/le-rina
the-ball rolled
to-Rina
137
head form a complex Directional predicate at LF, which combines the arguments of the
lexical head and the Directional P. This is schematized in (47):
(47)
N/Vpath
Arg (a moving entity)
Pdir
Int. (location)
Æ
N/V-Pdir
Arg, Int. (location)
When the lexical head is a verb like send, Arg in (47) is theta-argument (e.g.
Theme). In case the lexical head is a nominal, Arg is either: (i) a semantic slot in the
lexical semantic structure of the noun, corresponding to the moving entity (Grimshaw
1990) (e.g. John’s trip/race to India); or (ii) if the path denoting nominal is bus or plane
(e.g. the bus to Paris; the plane to Tokyo), Arg is identical to R, the external argument
of an N (Higginbotham 1985).33’ 34
I assume that the complex Directional predicate can be formed only in the most
local, head-complement, configuration. This predicts that the Directional PP cannot
function as across copula predicate, even if the subject is headed by a path denoting
noun. The question arises why the predication in (46a), repeated in (48), is only
marginal, and not ungrammatical. In other words, is (48), in fact, a counter-example to
the prediction?
(48)
?ha-tiyul hu le-hodu
the-trip he to-India
“The trip is to India.”
Following a suggestion by Julia Horvath (p.c.), I propose that (48) is actually not
an instance of across copula predication by a Directional PP, but rather an elliptic
modification. More specifically, the predicate in (48) is not the Directional PP, but
33
Path denoting Ns like trip, race, bus, road are result, rather than (complex) event, nominals
(simplifying the terminology in Grimshaw 1990). Following Grimshaw (1990), they do not have an
argument structure, i.e. they do not have syntactic arguments.
34
The combination with a Directional PP is systematic for nominals such as the race, the trip, which in
addition to path, include also the manner meaning component. In contrast, combination with a Directional
PP is much more restricted for nominals such as the road, the plane, the bus. Thus, although the road to
Amsterdam is fine, a sidewalk to the square or a bicycle to the village are infelicitous. I thank Fred
Landman for drawing my attention to these nominals, and Barbara Partee and Julia Horvath for clarifying
the relevant distinction between the former and the latter.
138
rather an (elided) NP modified by the Directional PP. The non-elided version of (48) is
given in (49):
(49)
ha-tiyul hu tiyul le-hodu
the-trip he trip to-India
“The trip is a trip to India.”
NPs can certainly be predicates (e.g. Dan is a teacher). Elided modifications like
(48) are marginal, probably due to the ellipsis of the nominal, which is part of the
complex Directional predicate. Nevertheless these constructions are not ungrammatical,
as long as the elided NP is semantically appropriate (49). The constructions will be
completely ungrammatical (50b), if the noun does not denote path. In other words, (50)
is ungrammatical, regardless of the ellipsis, because the nominal children, not having a
path meaning component, cannot be combined with a Directional phrase.
(50)
a. *ha-yeladim hem yeladim le-hodu
the-children they children to-India
b. *ha-yeladim hem le-hodu
the-children they to-India
Given the claim that the Directional P has only an internal semantic argument, the
following binding fact is surprising:
(51)
ba-xalom,
bart šalax et lisai el acmai/*ele-hai
“In his dream, Bart sent
Lisa
to herself/*to her.”
The obligatoriness of the reflexive in (51) seems to indicate that the two
arguments, lisa and acma (‘herself’) are co-arguments of the Directional P. On the face
of it, this is inconsistent with the assumption that the Directional P has an internal
argument slot (Int. location), but not an external one (47).
Based on the proposal made above, the noted inconsistency is reconciled. It should
be noted first that I assume that like the Dative verbs, the Directional ditransitive verb
such as send is materialized in the Larsonian VP-shell. At LF the lower Vpath and the
139
Directional P form a complex predicate. As a result, the Theme (of the original verbal
predicate) and the Location of the Directional P become co-arguments. The former is
the external argument of the complex Directional predicate (V-Pdir), and the latter is its
internal one. Under “Reflexivity”, this means that the complex V-Pdir is an independent
(syntactic) predicate, defining the lower VP (boldface) as the Binding domain, as shown
in (52):
(52)
LF representation
…[VP DPAg V [VP DPTh [V’[V’ Vpath [PP Pdir DPLoc]]]]]
V-Pdir : Arg (θTheme), Int (location)
It is worth noting that the above account makes a non-trivial assumption that the
lower V and the upper one are, to some extent, separate predicates. Consider (53):
(53)
ba-xalom,
bart šalax et acmoi/*otoi le-pariz
“In his dream, Bart sent himself/him to Paris.”
(53) shows that the Agent argument of the verb and its Theme argument are coarguments. I have argued that the Location argument and the Theme arguments are coarguments as well. However, based on (42), the Location argument (realized as a
pronoun) and the Agent argument are clearly not co-arguments.
Note that separation of predicates in the Directional construction cannot be
derived directly from the VP-shell analysis itself. In the Dative construction, assumed to
be materialized in the VP-shell, all the arguments (Agent, Theme and Goal) are indeed
co-arguments (see 4.2), indicating that the lower and the upper Vs are a single predicate.
As far as the Directional construction is concerned, note first that it is not
surprising that the Agent and the Theme are co-arguments (53); they are the original
arguments of the verb. Further, the Location argument introduced by the Directional
predicate (P) forms a complex predicate with the lower V. As a result, Theme and
Location become co-arguments (51). However, the verb and the Directional P remain
separate domains of predication, despite the process of complex predicate formation.
Therefore the Agent argument of the verb and the Location argument of the Directional
predicate are not co-arguments (42).
140
Consider now the English and Russian Directional constructions in (54):
(54)
a. By mistake, the clerk sent Rina to *him/himself.
b. po ošibke, poslužniki poslal Rinu k *nemui/sebei
(54) shows that the Location argument coindexed with the subject must be an
anaphor and cannot be a pronoun. Focusing on English (54a), this means that the
preposition to does not count as a Directional predicate, but rather as the Dative P (PC,
see 3.2). In other words, based on (54a), there is no reason to assume that there are two
distinct predicates in the Directional construction in English. The ‘directional’
interpretation of the Dative to in English comes from the verb. Accordingly, the binding
facts are expected to be identical to those in the Dative construction. Note that if this
explanation is on the right track, and taking into account that in a variety of languages
such as German, French and Dutch, the Directional P is realized by the Dative Pmorpheme, it is not surprising that the Dative and Directional constructions are often
analyzed as identical.
(54b) shows that it seems to be the case in general, that in a variety of languages
there is no Directional P-predicate, and the ‘directional’ interpretation of the
prepositions used in the Directional construction comes from the verb. In other words,
even though the P in the Russian Directional construction (54b) is not a Dative P (as
such preposition does not exist), it does not behave as a predicate.
In light of the above, I conclude that whether the preposition used in the
Directional construction is indeed a predicate (PR), as the Hebrew el/le-, or not, is a
language specific property. The complex predicate formation in (47) is, of course,
relevant only for the former.35
35
Dutch presents a potential problem. The binding facts in the Dutch Directional construction are
identical to those attested in English and Russian, indicating that the Directional preposition naar (‘to’) is
not a predicate (i.e. it is not PR bur rather PC) (Fred Landman p.c.). Given this, it is surprising that the
Directional PP, unlike the Dative one, or the PP in PP-verb constructions, cannot be extraposed to the
post-verbal position. It should be noted that in this respect, the Directional PP in Dutch patterns with
Locative PPs occurring in locative constructions headed by verbs such as put (discussed in the following
section, 4.4). In the literature, the inability to extrapose is taken to indicate that the PP forms a small
clause (Den Dikken 1995, following Hoekstra 1984). As discussed in details in 4.4., the small clause
analysis is plausible for the Locative P, as this P is an independent two-place predicate (PR). However, it
has been shown in 4.3.2 that the Directional P is different (e.g. it is dependent on the selecting lexical
head, the Directional PP cannot be across copula predicate). Therefore I did not follow Hoekstra and
Mulder 1990, who posit a small clause structure for the Directional PP. Note that even if the small clause
141
Although I will discuss the Directional Source P (me- ‘from’) in section 4.3.4, the
following binding facts are relevant here. Consider the behavior of the Source PP in
Hebrew, English and Russian:
(55)
a. dani hirxik
et
rina mi-menoi/*mi-acmoi
Dan removed Acc Rina from-him/from-himself
b. Dani removed Rina from himi/*himselfi
c. Oni otodvinul Rinu
ot *evoi/sebyai
He removed Rina-Acc from him/himself
Given the binding facts in (55), in Hebrew (55a) and English (55b), the Source P is
a predicate, but in Russian it is not (55c). Thus in Hebrew and Russian the Directional
prepositions behave alike; in the former they are predicates, in the latter they are not. In
English there is a split, the Goal P is not a predicate, but the Source P is.
4.3.3.1 Case in the Directional construction: It is well known that in some
morphologically rich languages (e.g. German, Russian, Latin, Greek, etc.), the DP
introduced by a (Directional) P in a Directional constriction is Accusative, rather than
Locative (Russian) or Dative (German and Greek), which are the ‘regular’ Cases
assigned by the corresponding Ps (cf. Emonds 1985:224). This is exemplified for
Russian in (56):
(56)
a. dan zašol
v komnat-u
Dan entered in room-Acc
“Dan entered the room.”
b. dan sidit v komnat-e
Dan sits in room-Loc
“Dan sits in the/a room.”
As mentioned earlier, the binding in the Directional construction in Russian
patterns with English rather than with Hebrew. Thus, there is no reason to believe that
analysis is adopted, it does not solve the problem; it accounts for the extraposition facts, but leaves the
binding facts unaccounted for.
142
the Accusative Case in (56) is due to complex predicate formation proposed to take
place in the Hebrew Directional construction. Moreover, the Case of the nominal is
Accusative (rather than Locative (57c)) not only in the Directional verbal constructions,
but also when a Directional PP is combined with an appropriate nominal, as shown in
(57). Importantly, nominals in Russian do not assign Accusative, but rather Genitive
(57b):
(57)
a. ekskursiya v les
trip
in forest-Acc
“a trip to [the] forest”
b. ekskursiya Mish-i
trip
Misha-Gen
“a trip of Misha”
c. ekskursiya v les-u
trip
in forest-Loc
“a trip in [the] forest”
Interestingly, this Case variation is reminiscent of the variation discussed in the
previous chapter (3.3.1): A DP introduced by a P-morpheme of the locative variety,
such as v (‘in’) is Accusative, rather than Locative, in PP-verb constructions, as shown
in (58):
(58)
dan verit
v Sach-u
Dan believes in Sacha-Acc
“Dan believes in Sacha.”
In chapter 3, this Case-variation is attributed to the difference between the function
of the locative small prepositions in Locative constructions and their function with PPverbs. In the Locative construction P is a predicate (PR) assigning inherent Case,
whereas in PP-verb constructions it is a Case-checking device, PC. Recall that the
Russian Directional construction indicates that there is no Directional P-predicate (PR)
in the language. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the preposition used as
143
‘directional’ in (56), (57) is PC. Accordingly, it checks the structural Case (Accusative)
of the nominal.36
4.3.3.2 The unaccusative behavior of unergative verbs of motion: As opposed to
typical Directional verbs such as send, verbs such as rac (‘ran’) or nafal (‘fell’) can be
construed as Directional, if a Directional PP is added (59), or they can be modified by a
Locative PP adjunct (60):
(59)
a. ha-kelev rac la-gina
the-dog ran to+the-garden
“The dog ran to the garden.”
b. ha-matbe’a nafal la-ma’im
the-coin
fell to+the-water
“The coin fell into the water.”
(60)
a. ha-kelev rac ba-gina
the-dog ran in+the-garden
“The dog ran in the garden.”
b. ha-matbe’a nafal ba-gina
the-coin
fell in+the-garden
“The coin fell in the garden.”
Note that ran, as opposed to fell, for instance, is an unergative one-place verb.
However, it has been noted by several researchers (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, Ackema
1995, and references cited therein) that unergative verbs of motion such as ran, exhibit
the typical unaccusative properties (e.g. auxiliary selection in Dutch), when combined
with a Directional PP (59a).37
Roughly speaking, a verb is classified as unergative if its subject is an external
argument (e.g. ran), but as unaccusative if it is merged internally, surfacing as the
subject upon syntactic movement (e.g. fell) (Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1986).
36
But see Reinhart and Reuland (1995) and reference cited therein where Accusative in the Directional
constructions is assumed to be inherent, rather than structural.
37
The arguable change from unergative to unaccusative is accompanied by the aspectual shift from state
to event (Hinrichs 1985).
144
Modification by possessive datives is used as a reliable test to detect internal
arguments in Hebrew. Borer and Grodzinsky (1986) observe that possessive datives can
only modify internal arguments. Hence, they can serve as possessors to subjects of
unaccusatives (61a), but not to subjects of unergatives (61b).
(61)
a. ha-sfarim naflu le-rina
the-books fell
to-Rina
b. *ha-kelev šaxav le-rina
the-dog lay
to-Rina
The verb rac (‘ran’) indeed patterns with unaccusatives when it occurs with a
Directional PP (62a), but with unergatives when it is not (62b). In (62a) the possessive
dative le-mi (‘to whom’, ‘whose’) modifies the subject (the dog, i.e. whose dog),
indicating that it is the internal argument of rac (‘ran’). In (62b) this reading is
unavailable, showing clearly that the subject is the external argument of rac (le-mi (‘to
whom’) can only modify the locative adjunct in the garden, i.e. whose garden):
(62)
a. le-mi
ha-kelev rac la-gina
to-whom the-dog
b. le-mi
ran to+the-garden
ha-kelev rac ba-gina
to-whom the-dog ran in+the-garden
Given this, the fact that the same verb is both unergative (60a), (62b) and
unaccusative (59a), (62a) is puzzling.
Let me sketch briefly how the puzzle can be accounted for, based on the mapping
generalizations in Reinhart (2000, 2001) (Tali Siloni p.c.).
Let us assume that a verb like run (and arguably also verbs like sleep, stand or sit)
does not assign an Agent theta-role, but rather it assigns a Theme. This is supported by
the fact that this theta-role can be realized by non-human DPs (The program runs
smoothly; The time runs quickly).
Further, it is reasonable to assume that run has two lexical entries:
(i)
run: Theme ([-c-m])
(ii)
run: Theme ([-c-m]), Goal ([-c])
145
The entry in (i) corresponds to the occurrence of run with a locative adjunct, which
is not part of the verbal theta-grid. (ii) is the theta-grid of the Directional run. As
mentioned earlier, unlike the locative PP, the Directional phrase can occur only with
path denoting verbs, and therefore it is part of the theta-grid of the verb.
It is standardly assumed that an Agent theta-role is mapped externally, whereas the
Theme and Goal theta-roles are mapped internally (see Reinhart 2000, 2001 for the
precise formulation). Thus the (Directional) run in (ii) is clearly unaccusative, as it does
not have an external theta-role. Crucially, Reinhart claims that the mapping
generalizations apply only to n>1-place verbs, namely, they do not apply to one-place
entries. The argument of a one-place verb, regardless of its thematic specification, maps
externally. Therefore run in (i) is unergative, even though it assigns a Theme rather than
an Agent.
4.3.4 On a certain distinction between Goal and Source Directional PPs
Although the Source PP headed by from is commonly assumed to be a Directional
PP, it does not behave identically to the Goal PP headed by a P such as to. Consider the
examples in (63):
(63)
a. ha-tiyul me-/le-hodu
nimšax šavu’a
the-trip from-/to-India continued week
“The trip from/to India took a week.”
b. dan barax
me-/el ha-kfar
Dan escaped from-/to the-village
“Dan escaped from/to the village.”
c. ha-yeladim
me-/*le-hodu nir’u ayefim
the-children from-/to-India looked tired
“The children from/*to India looked tired.”
Similarly to the Directional Goal PP, the Source PP combines with path
denoting heads (63a,b), and the P me- (‘form’) defines its complement as the initial
location of an entity moving along a path. However, unlike the Goal PP, Source PP
headed by me- (‘from’) is not limited to this particular group of heads. In its additional
146
use (63c), me- (‘from’) defines its complement as a source (in its rather broad sense) of
an entity or an event, with no reference to path or motion. This is illustrated further in
(64):
(64)
a. axarey še-nifgašti im
after
ha-rofe
mi-yerušala’im, hexlateti lehavri
that-[I] met with the-doctor from-Jerusalem, [I] decided to+[get] well
“After I met the doctor from Jerusalem, I decided to get well.”
b. dan axal et ha-laxmanya ha-zot mi-carfat
Dan ate Acc the-bun
the-this from-France
“Dan ate this bun from France.”
c. *dan axal et ha-laxmanya ha-zot le-carfat
Dan ate Acc the-bun
the-this to-France
In (64a), where neither the doctor nor the verb met have a path meaning,
Jerusalem is understood as the place of work of the doctor. In (64b), France either
specifies the origin of the bun, or, according to quite a few speakers of Hebrew, it is the
starting point, the source, of the event of eating. Note that the ungrammaticality of (64c)
indicates that eat is not a path-denoting verb.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the PP headed by me- (‘from’), unlike
the PP headed by le- (‘to’), is not necessarily Directional. In its non-Directional use it is
not dependent on a particular kind of a lexical head. In other words, as opposed to the
Hebrew Directional P, which is not a fully-fledged PR, the non-Directional Source P is a
regular predicate (PR). Therefore, it does not have to form a complex predicate with a
lexical head denoting path.
In light of this, the following facts are not surprising (the relevant examples are in
(65a) and (66a), the (b) examples are given for comparison with the Goal P):
(65)
a. ?ha-tiyul hu me-hodu
the-trip he from-India
“The trip is from India.”
b. ?ha-tiyul hu le-hodu
the-trip he to-India
“The trip is to India.”
147
(66)
a. ha-yeled hu me-hodu
the-child he from-India
“The child is from India.”
b. *ha-yeled hu le-hodu
the-child he to-India
Intended meaning: “The child is (traveling) to India.”
On the assumption that (65a) and (66a) are instances of elliptic modification (see
4.3.3), they are related to (67a) and (67b), respectively:
(67)
a. ha-tiyul hu tiyul me-hodu
the-trip he trip from-India
“The trip is a trip from India.”
b. ha-yeled hu yeled me-hodu
the-child he child from-India
“The child is a child from India.”
Since the PP in (67a) is Directional, it is plausible to attribute the grammaticality
contrast between (65a) and (67a) to the complex predicate formed between the N and
the PP in (67a). Eliding the nominal, which is part of the complex Directional predicate,
arguably results in a marginal sentence (65a). The PP in (66a) and (67b) is not
Directional, therefore (67b) does not involve complex predicate formation.
Consequently, eliding the nominal has no grammaticality affect (66a).38
Note that since the PP in (66a) is not Directional, i.e. it is headed by P which
realizes a fully-fledged PR, (66a) is not necessarily an elliptic modification. Recall that
the relation specified by PR is assumed to be interpreted as predicate-argument relation.
Thus it may well be the case that in (66a) the PP is an across copula predicate, rather
than a nominal modifier.
To summarize, I have argued that the Hebrew Directional (Goal) preposition
(le-/el ‘to’) is a predicate (PR), but not a fully-fledged one. Its external slot forces
38
The PP in (65a) cannot be interpreted as non-Directional Source. It appears to be the case that path
denoting nominals such as the trip force the Directional reading of the PP.
148
combination with a path denoting head, resulting in a complex predicate. The binding
facts exhibited in the Directional constructions in English and Russian led me to
conclude that the Directional (Goal) P in these languages (to, k) is not a predicate (PC);
its Directional meaning comes from the selecting lexical head.
4.4 Locative Ps
In the previous sections I mentioned the locative construction headed by verbs
such as put, placed and located, where the occurrence of Locative PPs is obligatory.
This will be the starting point of this section as well. Additional occurrences of Locative
PPs will be discussed as we proceed.
As already mentioned, based on the binding facts (68), the Locative P is a
predicate. The pronoun introduced by P and coindexed with the subject is grammatical.
In “Reflexivity”, this indicates that the verb and the Locative P are separate independent
predicates.
(68)
barti sam et ha-sukarya leyad-oi /*leyad acmoi
Bart put Acc the-candy near-him/near himself
Further, the obligatory occurrence of an anaphor coindexed with the object (69)
shows that P is reflexive marked, and hence a reflexive predicate (condition A in
“Reflexivity”). Under “Reflexivity” this means that P should have a subject (see 3.1).
(69)
af exad lo yaxol lasim xefeci al acmoi/leyad acmoi//*al-avi/*leyad-oi
No-one not can put
object on itself/near itself//on-it/near-it
(Oren Beit-Arie 1994)
If a verb like put is a three-place verb, with two internal arguments, Theme (DP)
and Location (PP), xefec (‘object’) in (69) is the direct object of the verb (cf. Marantz
1984, Hestvik 1991, Van Riemsdijk 1998), rather than the subject of P. This view has
two structural realizations: a Larsonian VP-shell, the lower part of which is actually a
verbal small clause (SC), schematacized in (70a) (Larson 1988; Hale and Keyser 1996,
149
Belletti and Shlonsky 1995), or a flat trinary structure, as in (70b):
(70)
a. ….Vput [SC=VP DP [V’ V PP] ]
b. …Vput DP PP
We can, however, posit a Small Clause (SC) structure for P, proposed
independently of the binding facts (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990; Rothstein 1995, 2001;
Den Dikken 1995; Moro 1997), with xefec the subject of the prepositional SC (SCPP).
The following preliminary schema depicts the relevant chunk of the Locative
construction:
(71) …Vput [SC= PP DPext [P’ PLoc DPint]]
Both the SCPP in (71) and the Larsonian VP-shell in (70a) adhere to the binary
branching requirement. It has become standard practice to assume binary structures
(originally due to Kayne 1984, but also Kayne 1994, among others). Therefore I discard
option (70b).
The structures relevant for the following discussion are repeated in (72). In (72a) P
is analyzed as a predicate of a SCPP argument, introducing both DPs. In (72b) the
predicate of the verbal SC (SCVP) is the verb, and the Locative PP is analyzed as its
(internal) argument:
(72)
a. ….Vput [SC= PP DPext [P’ PLoc DPint]]
b. ….V [SC=VP DP [V’ Vput PP]]
Based on the binding facts alone, the conclusion that the Locative PP has a subject
(72a) is not a necessary one. In “Reflexivity”, for instance, Locative Ps are argued to be
two-place predicates, but not to have a subject. The external argument of a Locative P is
proposed to be saturated in the lexicon, and not assigned in syntax. The occurrence of
the anaphor in examples such as (69) is attributed to control of the lexically saturated
argument of P by the direct object of the locative verb (Reinhart & Reuland 1993).
Therefore, in what follows I provide additional evidence for the SC analysis in
(72a).
150
4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Clause analysis
As it seems to be the case that the lower VP in the Larsonian VP-shell corresponds
to the V’ constituent in the flat trinary structure (70b), we do not expect to find much
difference between the analyses in (72) (repeated in (73) for convenience). In other
words, under both analyses the verb, the following DP and the PP form an inseparable
constituent.
(73)
a. ….Vput [SC= PP DPext [P’ PLoc DPint]]
b. ….V [SC=VP DP [V’ Vput PP]]
The analyses are, nevertheless, differentiated in that in the SC analysis (72a) P and
its complement (e.g. on the table) form a P’ constituent, whereas in the VP-shell
analysis (72b) it is a PP constituent. Thus, everything else being equal, under (72a), this
sequence is expected not to be movable, whereas under (72b), it is predicted to move
freely. Now, consider PP-extraposition in Dutch.
Dutch PPs, unlike DPs, extrapose freely and may occur pre- or post-verbally (Den
Dikken 1995, Van Riemsdijk 1998). This is exemplified below ((74a) is the Dutch PPverb construction, (74c) is the Dative construction, and in (74b) the PP is a temporal
adjunct):39
(74)
a. Ik had niet (op zoveel mensen) gerekend (op zoveel mensen)
I had not (on so-many people) counted (on so-many people)
b. Hij gaat (op zondagochtend) altijd golfen (op zondagochtend)
he goes (on Sunday-morning) always play-golf (on Sunday-morning)
(Van Riemsdijk 1998, (60), (61))
c. dat Jan het boek (aan Marie) gaf (aan Marie)
that Jan the book (to Mary) gave (to Mary)
In the Locative construction (75), PP-extraposition is ungrammatical (Den Dikken
1995; Henk van Riemsdijk p.c):
39
In linguistic literature the phenomenon is often referred to as PP-over-V.
151
(75)
dat Jan het boek (op de plank) zette (*op de plank)
that Jan the book (on the shelf) put (on the shelf)
(Den Dikken 1995, (20))
In (74) op zoveel mensen (‘on so-many people’), op zondagochtend (‘on Sundaymorning’) and aan Marie (‘to Mary’) are PPs. As expected, they can be moved. In (75)
op de plank (‘on the shelf’) is P’ according to the analysis in (72a), and a PP according
to (72b). The fact that op de plank (‘on the shelf’) in (75) cannot be extraposed can be
accounted for, if the structure is as in (72a); we do not expect a P’ constituent to move.
If the structure is as in (72b), we expect the Locative PP to be able to extrapose exactly
as in (74), contrary to facts. Thus, as noted in Den Dikken 1995 (attributed to Hoekstra
1984), failure to undergo extraposition is an unambiguous indication that the
prepositional constituent in question is a SC predicate.40
In sum, on the basis of binding phenomena and extraposition in Dutch, I conclude
that locative verbs such as put are two-place predicates, whose internal argument is a
prepositional SC (SCPP). In the following section I will further discuss the structure of
the Locative SC, but before that, the following clarification is necessary.
On the fairly accepted assumption, which can be traced back to Stowell 1981,
1983; Rothstein 1983; Kayne 1984; Hoekstra 1984, among others), SC is viewed as an
(additional) syntactic realization of an argument (or an adjunct), projected from a lexical
head such as A, N or V (Williams 1980, Rothstein 1983, 1995). As I assume that P is a
functional category, the claim that it can head a SC may seem surprising. Note,
however, that PR (realized by a variety of prepositions, among them the locative ones) is
assumed to have an internal and external argument slot, namely it is interpreted as a
two-place predicate-argument relation (see chapter 2). Therefore, PR can head a SC.
.
40
The fact that extraposition is possible in the Dative construction in Dutch (74c) argues against Den
Dikken’s (1995) proposal that Dative constructions involve a SC as in (i). Under his proposal, the Goal
PP is predicted not to extrapose, contrary to facts. Given that only PPs undergo extraposition, it also
indicates that the Goal argument in Dutch is a PP, rather than a DP as in Hebrew (4.2).
(i)
… V [PP=SC DPTheme P PPGoal]
152
4.4.2 Projections of a Locative P
It is well known that the distribution of the Locative PPs is rather wide. Thus in
addition to the locative construction (headed by verbs such as put), Locative PPs occur
as nominal and verbal modifiers (76) (labeled here as ‘Locative modifier’), and as
predicates in existential (locative) constructions (77):
(76)
a. The fruits in the basket are rotten.
Locative modifier
b. Dan ate in the garden.
(77)
ha-xatul ba-gina
the-cat
Existential constr.
in+the-garden
“The cat is in the garden.”
Given this, and the previous discussion regarding the status of the Locative P in
the locative construction as a predicate of a SC, one may wonder whether it is the case
that a Locative PP is always a predicate of a SC. Obviously, the Locative PPs occurring
as nominal or verbal modifiers (76) are not small clauses. A small clause is a closed,
saturated constituent, which serves as an argument, whereas modifiers, by definition,
are open constituents. Therefore a Locative PP occurring as a modifier cannot be a SC.
The next question is what is the status of the Locative PP in existential
constructions (77). It is widely assumed that existential (locative) constructions are, in
fact, raising out of a Locative SCPP constructions, as illustrated in (78) (Milsark 1974,
Stowell 1978, Chomsky 1982):
(78)
ha-xatuli [SC=PP ti ba-gina]
the-cat
in+the-garden
“The cat is in the garden.”
Is the structure of the SCPP in (78) identical to the SCPP in the locative
construction? In what follows I will argue that the SCPP of the locative construction is
not identical to that of the existential construction. I will return to modification by
Locative PPs in 4.4.3.
153
4.4.2.1 Locative Small Clauses: The views what is the structure of a SC can be
divided into two classes. According to Stowell (1981, 1983) and Rothstein (1983, 1995,
2001), for instance, a SC is a ‘super-maximal’ projection of the head of the predicate
expression (79a).41 There are researchers who assume that there is more to the structure
of the SC than meets the eye (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990; Chomsky 1995:175, among
others). In line with the functional structure of the clause, one may take SCs to contain a
functional head F, resulting in the analysis in (79b).42
(79)
a. [SC= SC/XP DP [XP [X’ X DP]]]
b. [SC=FP DP [F’ F [XP [X’ X DP]]]]
Assuming that both structures are valid, in what follows I will show that (79a)
corresponds to the Locative SC in existential constructions, whereas (79b) is the
structure of the Locative SC in the locative construction.43
As mentioned in chapter 3 (3.3), the Case assigned by some Locative prepositions
in Russian is either Locative (80a,b), or Accusative (80c), (81):
(80)
a. kniga
na
stol-e
Existential constr.
the-book [is] on [a/the] table-Loc
b. on vide/zabil
knig-u
na
stol-e
Locative modifier
he saw/forgot [a] book-Acc on [a/the] table-Loc
c. on položil
knig-u
na
stol
Locative constr.
he put [a/the] book-Acc on [a/the] table-Acc
41
Stowell (1981, 1983) and Rothstein (1983, 1995, 2001) differ in that the former assumes that the
projection predicated of the subject is X’, rather than XP (i). Given the Bare Phrase structure (Chomsky
1995), there is no real difference between the two.
(i)
42
[SC= XP DPext [X’ X DPint]]
The analysis in (79b) raises the question whether the subject is Merged in Spec-XP and attracted to
Spec-FP by a formal feature on F (Chomsky 1995, 2000), or rather merged directly in Spec-FP. I will
leave this question open here.
43
On the plausible assumption that F is categorially non-distinct from the head of the SC (e.g. N, A, P),
Stowell’s (1981) claim that a verb selects for a SC of a specific category, does not discriminate between
the analyses in (79).
154
(81)
a. on pologayetsya na Sach-u
he relies
PP-verb constr.
on Sacha-Acc
b. on poyexal na konferenci-yu
he went
Directional constr.
on conference-Acc
“He went to the/a conference.”
Based on (80) and (81), a couple of arguably related observations can be made: (i)
Among the variety of semantically locative contexts (80), the locative construction
(80c) is exceptional. The Case of the DP introduced by the Locative P na (‘on’) is
Accusative, rather than Locative. Note that in this respect, the locative construction
patterns with PP-verbs and Directional constructions (81). (ii) The locative and
existential constructions differ with respect to the Case of the DP introduced by the
Locative P (i.e. Accusative vs. Locative). Recall that in these constructions the Locative
PP is assumed to be a predicate of a SC constituent.
The question arises as to why the Case in the locative construction (80c) is
Accusative.
Note that the locative verbs (e.g. put, place, locate) denote a change of location,
rather than a static location. Thus although these verbs are not path denoting verbs
(82a), the path meaning seems to be incorporated in their lexical semantics (Jackendoff
1990) (82b):
(82)
a. *Dan put the book to the pocket.
b. Dan put the book in(to) the pocket.
If so, the occurrence of Accusative in the Locative construction can be accounted
for. I propose that the Locative SC in the locative construction (80c) includes a
phonetically empty counterpart of the Directional P (83).
(83)
SCPP in the locative construction
…[FP=SC DPext Pdir [PP Ploc DPint]]
(corresponds to the SC in (79b))
This structure reflects Jackendovian representation of change of location verbs,
where a PATH predicate (Pdir) takes Location (Locative PP) as its complement
155
(Jackendoff 1990). It is also supported syntactically by languages where the Directional
P can (or have to) incorporate into the verb (e.g. German, Dutch, Yucatec Maya), but
the Locative ones never do (Koopman 2000, Van Riemsdijk and Huybregts 2001).44
Recall that the Directional P in many languages is an instance of PC, namely it has
uninterpretable φ-features that have to be deleted. This can be achieved if Pdir checks
structurally the Case of DPint. Thus, the occurrence of Pdir forces structural Case
checking (Accusative), overriding the assignment of Locative by the Locative P.
Existential locative constructions (80a) denote a static location, and therefore they
cannot license the (phonetically empty) Directional P. The structure of the prepositional
SC in existential constructions is, therefore, as in (84).
(84)
SCPP in the existential construction
…[PP=SC DPext [PP Ploc DPint]]
(corresponds to the SC in (79a))
Since the Directional P is licensed only by verbs that are associated with a path
meaning, a SCPP occurring as a complement to ECM verbs such as consider or want
which clearly do not have path meaning, is predicted to have the structure in (84). As a
result, the Case of the DP introduced by a Locative P should be Locative. This
prediction is born out, as shown in (85):
(85)
a. ya xoču [SC tebya v komnat-e]
I
want
you in room-Loc
“I want you in the room.”
b. ya sčitayu [SC evo v klas-e/na korobl-e]
I consider
him in classroom-Loc/on ship-Loc
“I think that he is in the classroom/on the ship.”
In the following section I will take a closer look at modification by Locative PPs.
44
The apparently opposite order of the P-morphemes in the complex preposition into (or onto) (82b) is
either the result of head-movement and left-adjunction of the Locative on to the Directional to, or
onto/into are lexical items in English.
156
4.4.3 Modification by Locative PPs
As already mentioned, Locative PPs, in addition to their occurrence in the
Locative and existential constructions, function as modifiers, forming open constituents,
PPs, rather than SCs.
Semantic analyses take Locative Ps to be two-place predicates locating one entity
(‘the located object’) relative to the other (‘reference object’). The entity located can be
either an individual or an eventuality (Zwarts and Winter 2000, Maienborn 2001). In
other words, the Locative P defines its complement as the Location of either individuals
or eventualities.
Following Higginbotham 1985, I assume that the mechanism which underlies
modification is identification of two external arguments. More specifically, the external
slot of the locative PP can be saturated either by identification with R, the external
argument of Ns, or by e, the external argument of Vs (Davidson 1967, Higginbotham
1985). The ability to modify eventualities is usually taken to indicate that the modifier
(e.g. an adverb, a VP-internal Locative PP (Parsons 1990)) has an e argument, with
which the e variable of the verb is identified. In what follows I will adopt this
assumption.
Thus when a Locative PP modifies a VP (86a) its e variable is identified with the e
of the verb (and its internal slot (Int) is saturated by the nominal complement). When it
modifies a nominal (86b), the external slot of the Locative P (Ext) is identified with the
external argument of the nominal (R):
(86)
a. Dan ate/talked to Rina [in the garden].
V: e, …
Ploc: e, Int
b. The book
[on the table]
NR
Ploc: Ext, Int
belongs to my aunt.
Viewed this way, the lexical representation of the Locative P resembles the
argument structure of a verb, which is assumed to have in addition to its thetaargument(s), an e argument (Davidson 1967; Williams 1980; Higginbotham 1985;
157
Kratzer 1988, 1994). Thus, some syntactic similarities between VPs and Locative PPs
are expected. Clausal PP-modification is one of these, to be discussed directly.
As already mentioned, Locative PPs can combine with almost any DP (87). This
is not specific to Locative PPs. Similarly, other kinds of PPs can combine with DPs
(88):
(87)
a. ha-ec
ba-ya’ar
karas
the-tree in+the-forest fell down
b. ha-tiyul ba-ya’ar
haya na’im
the-trip in+the-forest was pleasant
(88)
a. ha-tiyul la-ya’ar
nidxa
the-trip to+the-forest [was] postponed
b. ha-sefer al
ahava
azal
the-book about love [was] sold out
c. ha-sixa
im rina
nifseka
the conversation with Rina stopped
What seems to be specific to Locative PPs is that the combination with a DP can
be either as in (87), or via the complementizer še-/ašer (‘that’), as in (89a), which is
completely ungrammatical for other kinds of PPs (89b,c,d):45
(89)
a. ha-ec
še-/ašer ba-ya’ar
the-tree that
b. *ha-tiyul še-/ašer
the-trip that
45
karas
in+the-forest fell down
la-ya’ar
nidxa
to+the-forest [was] postponed
The complementizer ašer is specific to relative clauses in Hebrew.
158
c. *ha-sefer še-/ašer
the-book that
d. *ha-sixa
al
azal
about love [was] sold out
še-/ašer im rina
the-conversation that
e. ha-iš
ahava
nifseka 46
with Rina stopped
še-/ašer rakad nafal
the-man that
danced fell
Under the null hypothesis, the occurrence of še-/ašer (‘that’) indicates that the
structure involves C (projecting a relative CP). Thus, Locative PPs seem to pattern with
VPs (89e), rather than with non-Locative PPs. Given this, two questions arise: 1. What
is the structure of the clausal PP-modifier (89a)? 2. Why is clausal modification (89a)
possible only with Locative PPs? I will address each question in turn.
4.4.3.1 The structure of clausal PP-modifiers: A head like T combines with a VP
projecting a TP (but see ahead). The latter is assumed to be the unique complement of C
(cf. Grimshaw 1991). Under these assumptions, the syntactic analysis of clausal PPmodification (e.g. (89a)) will have to include an abstract T and a phonetically empty V
taking the Locative PP as its complement, as in (90):
(90)
ha-ec [CP še- [TP T [VP V [PP ba-ya’ar]]]
the-tree
that-
in+the-forest
Alternatively, clausal PP-modifiers (89a) may involve a reduced (impoverished)
structure. Keeping the presence of C and the Locative PP constant, there are three
possibilities to consider:
46
Apparently, the only exception to the claim that CP-like modification is possible only with Locative
PPs is presented by PPs headed by im (‘with’) (i). The interpretation of im (‘with’) in (i) is different from
its interpretation in the example in the text. It has been noted in the literature that the preposition with in
certain contexts is, in fact, a locative preposition (cf. Kayne 1984:158). I leave the matter for future
research.
(i)
ha-yalda (še-) im yosi hi axot-i
the-girl that- with Yosi she sister-my
“The girl who is with Yosi is my sister.”
159
(91)
a. [CP C [TP T PP]]
b. [CP C [VP V PP]]
c. [CP C PP]
(91c) can be ruled out on empirical grounds. Consider the following examples that
include the adverbial mamaš (lit. ‘really’, similar, but not identical, to ‘right’):
(92)
a. dan maca et ha-sefer mamaš al kce ha-šulxan
dan found Acc the-book right on edge the-table
“Dan found the book right on the edge of the table.”
b. *ha-sefer mamaš al kce ha-šulxan nir’e me’anyen
the-book right on edge the-table seems interesting
“The book right on the edge of the table seems interesting.”
In (92a) the Locative PP modifies the VP, and therefore it is c-commanded by T.
In (92b) it modifies the subject of the clause, and therefore it is not c-commanded by the
matrix T or V. Note also that in (92b) the Locative PP does not form a clausal modifier,
it is not introduced by še- (‘that’). Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the
Locative PP is embedded under T. It is plausible to account for the contrast in (92) by
assuming that the adverb mamaš needs to be licensed by a c-commanding T or V. This
is not unreasonable, as adverbs are related to the e argument (introduced by the verb),
which is bound by the existential operator associated with T.47 Given this, (92b) is
ungrammatical, since there is no c-commanding T or V that can license the adverb
47
The full grammaticality of the English gloss of (92b) is probably due to the following. Right is assumed
to be the typical prepositional adverb, namely an adverb whose occurrence is licensed by a preposition
(rather than by T or V):
(i)
a. Eat it (up).
b. Eat it (right) up!
c. Eat it (*right).
The Hebrew mamaš is not strictly prepositional (ii), and therefore needs licensing by T (or V).
(ii)
a. hu
mamaš yafe
he [is] really pretty
b. dan mamaš af
Dan really flew
160
mamaš. With this in mind, consider (93) which differs minimally from (92b), but is
fully grammatical:
(93)
ha-sefer še-mamaš al kce
ha-šulxan nir’e me’anyen
the-book that-right on edge the-table seems interesting
“The book that is right on the edge of the table seems interesting.”
In (93) the Locative PP is clausal, as it is introduced by še- (‘that’). On the
assumption that clausal PP-modification includes a TP or a VP, providing the licensing
for the adverbials, the grammaticality of (93) follows. Based on this, I conclude that
(91c) is not the right structure for the clausal PP-modifier, as it includes neither T nor
V.48
The remaining alternatives, (91a) and (91b) raise the following questions. Is it
plausible to assume that T can take a PP as its complement, rather than a VP (91a)? Is it
plausible that the complement of C is not a TP (91b)?
Analyzing verbless copular constructions in Hebrew, Doron (1983) and Shlonsky
(1997) argue that non-verbal predicates such as AP, NP or PP are legitimate
complements to the functional clausal head T. More specifically, these constructions are
argued to have a full clausal structure, contra Rapoport 1987 and Rothstein 1995, who
argue that they are small clauses. I assume with Doron and Shlonsky that the clausal
functional head T does not necessarily combine with a VP, but rather with any XP,
including the Locative PP. If so, then (91a) is as plausible as (90).
Siloni (1997) draws a functional parallelism between DPs and CPs (proposed in
Szabolcsi 1987, 1989), claiming that the presence versus absence of tense is the crucial
factor determining the choice between the two. More specifically, as opposed to the
functional head D which can combine only with projections that do not include tense
(T), C combines only with XPs which include a tense operator (Stowell 1982). Thus
48
Note that the grammaticality of (i) indicates that verbless copular PP constructions in Hebrew include a
TP (as in Doron 1983 and Shlonsky 1997, contra Rapoport 1987 and Rothstein 1995):
(i)
ha-sefer (mamaš) al kce ha-šulxan
the-book (right) on edge the-table
“The book is right on the edge of the table.”
161
following Siloni (1997), among the options in (91), only (91a) is a valid structure as it
includes T.49
In light of the above, in what follows I assume clausal PP-modifiers (89a) have the
structure in (94):
(94)
ha-ec [CP še- [TP T [PP ba-ya’ar]]] …
the-tree that-
in+the-forest
The value of the empty T in (94) is fixed and set on [present], as in (94’). Note,
that the denotation (reference-time) of present tense coincides with speech-time
(Reichenbach 1947). Thus, arguably it does not have to be morphologically marked
either on the T-head or on its complement. A phonetically empty T[present] is available
only in some languages (e.g. Hebrew, Russian), as witnessed by verbless copular
constructions (e.g. dan yafe, Dan krasiviy, ‘Dan [is] beautiful’).
(94’)
ha-ec [CP še- [TP T[present] [PP ba-ya’ar]]] …
the-tree that
in+the-forest
Before I conclude this part of the discussion, the following is worth mentioning.
There are nominals such as ha-tiyul (‘the trip’), ha-te’una (‘the accident’), ha-ason (‘the
disaster’), ha-hatkafa (‘the attack’), that resist clausal PP-modification (95a) (compare
with (95b)). Like the trip in (95a), all of them can be modified by a Locative PP, but not
if it is embedded under C. Since the embedding under C is argued here to be mediated
by T[present], it is reasonable to examine whether this impossibility is related to the
presence of T[present].
(95)
a. ha-tiyul (*še-) ba-ya’ar
(haya) na’im
the-trip that-in+the-forest was
49
pleasant
It is worth noting that in Siloni (1997) this does not imply that VPs have to occur with T. Siloni (1997)
shows that English and French reduced (participial) relatives (e.g. [The man [arrested just before the
junction]] is my uncle) are tenseless clausal structures, which means that VPs can be integrated into
syntactic structure without a T. The functional clausal head in these structures is argued to be D, rather
than C.
162
b. ha-ec (še-) ba-ya’ar
karas
the-tree that-in+the-forest fell down
Note first, that it is not the present tense itself that creates the problem in (95a). In
the grammatical (96) ha-ason (‘the disaster’) is modified by a relative CP whose tense
is present.
(96)
ha-ason
še-mitraxeš kan, le-neged
eyneynu …
the-disaster that-happens here, to-against eyes-our …
“The disaster that is happening here, in front of our eyes…”
Thus the relevant distinction between nominals such as the disaster and nominals
such as the tree is the inability of the former, as opposed to the ability of latter, to occur
with an empty T[present] whose complement is a Locative PP.
Recall that based on their ability to be predicated of individuals and eventualities,
the lexical representation of Locative Ps is assumed to include optionally an e variable,
bound by the tense operator. Modification by non-clausal Locative PPs (PPs), which is
grammatical for all nominals, does not have recourse to e; it involves the external
(argument) slot of the Locative P (Ext) and the external argument of the nominal (R)
(86b). The same, namely identification of Ext with R, takes place when the Locative PPmodifier forms a relative CP, but in addition, the e variable of the Locative P is
arguably bound by the empty T[present]. Why exactly does this affect the grammaticality
of (95a) is not clear to me. Intuitively speaking, it seems to be the case that the
interpretation of the empty T[present] occurring with Locative PP-modifiers is
incompatible with the denotation of nominals such as the disaster. In rough lines, the
denotation of these nominals includes a time-interval, unlike the denotation of nominals
such as the tree or the book. In other words, nominals such as the disaster denote
objects with durative meaning, namely their denotation is Revent. Thus, it seems plausible
to suggest that in Hebrew an empty T[present] occurring with Locative PP-modifiers is
interpreted as simple present, which is incompatible with Revent-nominals (95a) (see the
English gloss of (96)).
163
4.4.3.2 The Locative/non-Locative distinction: Hebrew present tense copular
constructions do not include a verb (97a) (Rubinstein 1968; Ben-David 1971; Doron
1983; Rapoport 1987; Rothstein 1995; Shlonsky 1997). They may, however, include the
so-called ‘pronominal copula’ termed by Doron (1983) Pron (97b):
(97)
a. bart nexmad
Bart nice
b. bart hu nexmad
Bart he nice
“Bart is nice.”
It has been noted in traditional grammars (Rubinstein 1968, Ben-David 1971) and
further developed in Greenberg (1994), that the presence or the absence of Pron
correlates with a semantic distinction which can be described in terms of stage- and
individual-level predicates. A stage-level predicate denotes a temporary property, such
as tired or dirty, whereas an individual-level predicate denotes a permanent property of
an individual.50 (97a) has the interpretation that ‘Bart is nice now’ (the stage-level
interpretation of nice), whereas (97b) is interpreted as ‘Bart is generally nice’
(individual level-interpretation). This distinction can be highlighted by a temporal
adverb. Such an adverb can be added naturally to (97a) resulting in (98a), but not to
(97b), as shown in (98b) (Greenberg 1994):
(98)
a. bart nexmad hayom
Bart nice
today
“Bart is nice today.”
b. #bart hu nexmad hayom
Bart he nice
today
Consider now copular constructions with PPs:
50
The classification into individual- and stage-level predicates was proposed by Carlson (1977).
164
(99)
a. ha-sefer (??/*hu) al ha-šulxan
the-book
(he)
Locative PP
on the-table
“The book is on the table.”
b. migdal ayfel *(hu) be-pariz
tour Eiffel
Locative PP
(he) in-Paris
“The Eiffel tower is in Paris.”
c. ha-sixa
*(?hi) im rina
non-Locative PP
the-conversation (she) with Rina
d. ha-diyun
*(?hu) al
the-discussion he
ahava
non-Locative PP
about love
Pron is very marginal with Locative predicates (99a), unless, based on our world
knowledge, we identify the Locative predicate as a permanent (i.e. individual-level)
location of the subject, as in (99b). It appears, then, that Locative PPs denote present
(stage-level) locations, which, depending on a particular subject, can be interpreted as
the permanent (individual-level) location of the subject.
With non-Locative PPs (99c,d) Pron is obligatory. This can be taken to indicate
that non-Locative PPs, in contrast to the Locative ones, are individual-level predicates.
Note, however, that the obligatory occurrence of Pron does not render the examples in
(99c,d) fully grammatical (compare with (99b), (97b)). This suggests that the
individual/stage-level distinction is not what underlies the contrast between the Locative
and non-Locative PPs.
The marginality of the verbless copular constructions in (99c,d) is reminiscent of
the Directional copular construction repeated in (100a). In 4.3.3 I argued that (100a) is
not an instance of across copula predication by the Directional PP, but rather elliptic
modification (100b) (eliding the nominal has some effect on the grammaticality of the
sentence):
(100)
a. ?ha-tiyul hu le-hodu
the-trip he to-India
b. ha-tiyul hu tiyul le-hodu
the-trip he trip to-India
165
I propose that the marginality of (99c,d) and (100a) is of the same nature. (99c,d),
on a par with (100a), are not instances of across copula predication by non-Locative
PPs, but rather elliptic modifications. The non-elided version of (99d) is given in
(101a). It is indeed fully grammatical, like (100b). The ungrammaticality of (101b)
shows that (99a) is not an instance of elliptic modification, supporting the assumption
that the Locative PP in (99a) is indeed an across copula predicate:
(101) a. ha-diyun
hu diyun
al ahava
non-Locative PP
the-discussion he discussion about love
“The discussion is discussion about love.”
b. *ha-sefer (hu) sefer al ha-šulxan
Locative PP
the-book (he) book on the-table
In light of the above, Locative PPs differ from non-Locative PPs in that the former
can be genuine independent predicates, whereas the latter are modifiers. Put differently,
the external slot of the Locative P (Ext) can be satisfied either by identification with the
external argument of a nominal (R) or by assignment to a syntactic argument. But the
external slot of non-Locative Ps such as about can be satisfied only through
identification. Since non-Locative PPs cannot be independent predicates, they cannot
form clausal modifiers.
To summarize this section: Locative Ps are independent two-place predicates (PR),
whose lexical representation can include an e variable. Accordingly, Locative PPs can
form SCs or PP-modifiers. I have argued that the structure of the Locative SC in the
locative construction is richer than that in the existential construction, as it includes an
additional PP layer projected from a phonetically null Directional P. Due to their status
as independent two-place predicates, Locative PPs in Hebrew can combine with T[present]
to form clausal PP-modifiers.
166
Appendix: On some differences between the Hebrew and English Dative Shift
I. The starting point
In the Hebrew Dative construction, the argument that occurs adjacent to the verb,
whether Theme or Goal, can bind the other one (A.1) (Borer and Grodzinsky (1986)). I
take this to indicate that Hebrew, like English, has a syntactic Dative Shift (DS) (see
also Landau 1994).51
(A.1) a. dan her’a
et
ha-tinoket le-acma
Dan showed Acc the-baby
to-herself
“Dan showed the baby to herself.”
b. dan her’a
la-tinoket
et
acma (ba-mar’a)
Dan showed to+the-baby Acc herself (in+the-mirror)
“Dan showed the baby herself (in the mirror).”
Given this, the goal of this discussion is to account for the following differences
between the Hebrew and English DS:
(i)
It is a well-known fact that in the DS in English the Dative preposition to
is dropped. In the Hebrew DS le- does not disappear (A.1b).
(ii)
It is possible to passivize the Goal argument in the English shifted
construction, but in Hebrew the only argument that can undergo
passivization is the Theme argument, regardless of the DS.
In what follows I will account for (i) and (ii) showing that both stem from the
(different) status of the Dative P-morpheme in the two languages. But prior to that, let
me set up my background assumptions.
II. Background assumptions
As is well known, the DS phenomenon exists in some languages (e.g. English), but
51
I am abstracting away from the question whether the hierarchical shift between the relevant arguments
(i.e. DS) is a result of movement (from the same Merge, in accordance with Baker’s UTAH, Baker 1988),
or rather a reflection of two different base generations (from two distinct numerations).
167
not in other (e.g. French). It has been proposed by Kayne (1984) that the availability of
a phonetically null Dative P and the existence of the DS are closely related. More
specifically, the DS is assumed to be a Case related phenomenon, attested only in
languages where the Dative P can be phonetically null (see also Baker (1988), (1997),
Larson (1988a), and Den Dikken (1995)).52
Following this tradition and based on the discussion in this chapter, and in chapter
3, I assume that the DS occurs when there is no Dative P in the syntactic structure (or
numeration). More specifically, Dative Case of a DP can be checked either by the
Dative P, or it has to be checked by the verb. The latter induces the DS.
With this in mind, let us examine first the DS in English.
III. The DS scenario for English
A Dative triadic verb such as give has two internal arguments. In the Dative
construction the Case of the Theme argument is checked by the verb, and that of the
Goal by the Dative P to. The later is realized as a PP, since, as discussed in this chapter,
the Dative P-morpheme to has the status of an independent syntactic P-head projecting a
PP.
When the Dative P is absent, the Case of the nominal has to be checked by the
appropriate head. Adapting the proposal in Den Dikken (1995), I assume that the
relevant head is the abstract verb BE located within the VP-shell (A.2). Thus, in the DS
in English the Goal DP moves into the specifier of the projection headed by BE to
check its Case feature. (The resulting construction is labeled the Double Object
construction (DOC)):53
52
Kayne (2001) propose that the possibility not to realize the Dative P-morpheme in a given language
depends, at least partially, on the richness of the semantic content associated with the Dative Pmorpheme. The relevant contrast is between the English to on the one hand, and the French à on the
other. The former is compatible mainly with directional and transfer meanings, whereas the latter, in
addition, conveys the locative meaning (‘at’), and therefore cannot be omitted.
53
For additional possible implementations see Larson 1988a, Ura 1996, Baker 1997, among many others.
168
(A.2)
VP
Agent
V’
V
VP
V’
Goali
BE
VP
Theme
V’
V
ti
IV. The DS in Hebrew
As already mentioned, unlike in English, in the Hebrew DS the Dative Pmorpheme le- (A.3b) does not disappear. This seems to be inconsistent with the
assumption that the DS occurs when the Dative P is absent.
(A.3) a. dan her’a
et
ha-tinoket le-acma
Dan showed Acc the-baby to-herself
“Dan showed the baby to herself.”
b. dan her’a la-tinoket
et acma (ba-mar’a)
Dan showed to+the-baby Acc herself (in+the-mirror)
“Dan showed the baby herself (in the mirror).”
Recall first, that the Hebrew Dative le- is not a P-head, but rather a lexical affix on
D (3.2). The analysis of the Dative le- raised the question whether le- is the realization
of Dative Case, or rather an affixal PC, namely a structural Case-checker of the
nominal’s Case-feature. I propose that, in fact, it can be either an affixal PC or the
realization of Dative Case. Since le- is a lexical affix on D, the Goal is realized in
Hebrew as a DP, regardless of the role of le-:
169
(A.4)
DP
D’
D
le-[Pc] /le-
NP
D
When le- is PC, it checks the Case-feature of the nominal (in a head-head
configuration, within the DP) (A.4). When le- is the realization of the Dative Case, the
Dative-marked Goal DP has to check its Dative Case in an appropriate structural
position. This is achieved upon movement of the Goal DP into the spec of VP headed
by BE:
(A.5)
VP
Agent
V’
V
VP
V’
[le-DP]i (Goal)
BE
VP
Theme
V’
V
ti
The account of the Hebrew DS has the following prediction. On the assumption
that Hebrew Dative (and Accusative) pronouns are picked out from the lexicon Casemarked (Tali Siloni p.c.) (e.g. lanu is ‘us’-Dative), their Dative Case has to be checked.
170
Consequently, they are predicted to undergo obligatory DS and surface adjacent to the
verb (unless Focus shift takes place, Nomi Shir p.c.). As shown in (A.6), this prediction
is born out:
(A.6)
a. *dan natan et ha-sefer/oto
lanu
Dan gave Acc the-book/him us-Dat
b. dan natan lanu
et
ha-sefer/oto
Dan gave us-Dat Acc the-book/him
I turn now to the other distinction attested in the English and Hebrew shifted
constructions, the passivization of the Goal argument.
V. Passivization of the Goal argument in English vs. Hebrew
As already mentioned, it is possible to passivize the Goal argument in the English
shifted construction (DOC), but in Hebrew the only argument which can undergo
passivization is the Theme argument, regardless of the shift.54 Passivization in the
shifted constructions in English and Hebrew is illustrated in (A.7) and (A.8),
respectively:
(A.7)
a. Dan was given t the book
b.*The book was given Dan t
(A.8)
a. ha-sefer
nitan
le-dan
the-book was+given to-Dan
b.*le-dan nitan
et ha-sefer
to-Dan was+given Acc the-book
It is standardly assumed that passive morphology absorbs the ability of the verb to
check the (Accusative/structural) Case feature of the nominal (as well as to assign
54
In the non-shifted construction in English, the passivization facts are identical to those in Hebrew, only
the Theme argument can undergo passivization:
(i)
a. The book was given to John.
b. *John was given the book to.
171
syntactically its external theta-role). The question which consequently arises is the
following: Why is it the Goal DP which is affected by passivization of the verb in the
English DOC (A.7a), but the Theme DP in Hebrew (A.8a)?
Given the status of the Dative P in Hebrew as a lexical D-affix, the Hebrew facts
are fully expected. More specifically, since the Dative le- in Hebrew (whether a Casemarker or PC) is lexically associated with D, it is not affected by the passive
morphology on the verb. Consequently, the passive morphology on the verb has no
effect on the Goal DP.
Unlike in Hebrew, the Dative P in English is an independent syntactic head. When
it is absent (i.e. in the DOC), the Dative feature [Dat], which is needed in order to check
the Case of the nominal, can only be associated with the verb (BE). Further, I propose to
view the association of the feature [Dat] with the verb in the spirit of Di Sciullo and
Williams 1987. More specifically, upon its addition, [Dat] becomes the head Casefeature of the verb, instead of the original [Acc] feature, as schematicized in (A.9). It is
fully expected, then, that it is [Dat], rather than [Acc], which is affected by the passive
morphology. Consequently, only the Goal argument undergoes passivization in the
DOC in English.55
(A.9)
V[Acc]
[Acc] + [Dat]
55
Æ
( no P Æ [Dat])
V[Dat]
[Acc]
[Dat]
In this respect the proposal is similar in spirit to Larson (1988a), where [Dat] is referred to as structural
Accusative, as opposed to inherent Accusative assigned to the Theme DP in the DOC.
172
.
5. Ppred in object gap constructions
5.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on two object gap constructions: The Tough Construction
(TC) shown in (1a), and the Object Purpose Clause (OPC) in (1b). The defining
property of these constructions is that the embedded constituent has a gap in object
position. The gap is obligatorily coindexed with an antecedent in the main clause; the
subject in the TC, and the internal argument of the verb in the OPC (Faraci 1974,
Fiengo and Lasnik 1974, Chomsky 1977, Browning 1987, Cinque 1990, Jones 1991,
among others). (As the identity and syntactic status of this gap are rather
controversial, I will mark it for now as e): 1
(1)
a. ha-seferi
kaše
li-kri’a
ei
the-book [is] difficult to-reading
“The book is difficult to read.”
b. bart hevi
et ha-otoi li-vdika
ei
Bart brought Acc the-car to-examination
“Bart brought the car to examine.”
1
Additional object gap constructions are the Degree construction (for a brief discussion see Appendix
A), exemplified in (ia), and the Complex Adjectival construction in (ib), which is not discussed here.
(Among the object gap constructions only the TC and the Complex Adjectival constructions are
obligatory object gap constructions):
(i)
a. ha-te xam miday li-štiya
the-tea hot too
to-drinking
“The tea is too hot to drink.”
b. ha-yalda yafa le-mar’e
the-girl pretty to-looks
“The girl is pretty to look at.”
The P-morpheme le- (‘to’) (and sometimes ke- (‘as’)) is used optionally in nominal and adjectival
Small Clauses (SC) selected by a certain group of ECM/Raising verbs (ii). These constructions differ in
many respects from the object gap constructions, and are discussed in Appendix B.
(ii)
hu
nexšav/haya
le-yafe/balšan
he [is] considered/became to-pretty/linguist
“He is considered/became pretty/a linguist.”
173
.
In English the constituent embedded under the main predicate (e.g. the tough A,
the main V) is introduced by to, and it is verbal. But in Hebrew the constituent
introduced by the P-morpheme le- (‘to’) is nominal.
The P-morpheme le- (‘to’) has been mentioned and discussed in chapter 4. It
has been shown that in Hebrew it can appear in (at least) two syntactically distinct
contexts, the Dative and the Directional constructions. In the former it is a Caserelated affix (PC); in the latter, it is a predicate (PR), though not a fully-fledged one (it
has only an internal argument slot).
le- (‘to’) in (1) introduces predicative constituents. This can be established given
the following diagnostic: An argumental expression can be referred to by the
appropriate pronoun (2a). This is impossible for a predicative constituent (2b):
(2) a. ha-seferi
haya kal li-kri’a.
hui
nikra
tox
xaci ša’a.
the-book-masc.was easy to-reading-fem. It-masc. was-read inside half hour.
“The book was easy to read. It was read in half an hour.”
b. ha-sefer
haya kal
li-[kri’a] i.
*hii
nimšexa xaci ša’a.
the-book-masc. was easy to-reading-fem. It-fem. continued half hour.
Since the complement of le- in object gap constructions (1) is a predicative
phrase, it is unlikely that le- is a predicate (PR); predicates combine with argumental,
rather than predicative, phrases. It is equally unlikely to be Case-related (PC), as only
argumental nominals need to check their Case feature (Chomsky 1981, 1986). I label
this not so familiar function of the prepositional element (i.e. le-) Ppred.2
Based on the properties of the sequence ‘le-nominal’ in object gap constructions,
I will argue that le- is a lexical prepositional affix (affixal Ppred). Its attachment to an
event-denoting N results in a nominal element with an externalized theta-role (i.e. a
nominal with an external argument slot, as posited for Ps like under, or As like nice),
projecting an NP (rather than a PP, or a DP) (see sections 5.2, 5.3).
2
As noted in Siloni (1994), Hebrew manner adverbials are mostly PPs headed by the P-morpheme be(‘in’) (i). I leave the question what is the function of be- in this context for future research.
(i)
ha-xeder
nuka bi-mhirut/be-yesodiyut
the-room [was] cleaned in-haste/in-thoroughness
“The room was cleaned quickly/thoroughly.”
174
.
Extending the proposal to English (section 5.4), I establish that the morpheme to
in object gap constructions is a syntactic P-head, rather than T. It will be argued that
P-to externalizes the internal role of its complement (i.e. it is Ppred), creating a
predicative phrase (PP) with an external argument slot.
In object gap constructions the predicative PP in English and NP in Hebrew
function on a par. It will be shown that the PP/NP is a secondary predicate in the
OPC, along lines of Rothstein (2003). In the TC this constituent (PP/NP) is proposed
to form a complex AP predicate with the tough A (section 5.5).
The outcome of the analysis is that the cluster of properties attested in object
gap constructions in English vs. Hebrew follows from the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ (Siloni 2002). Siloni (2002) argues that certain operations such as
reflexivization and reciprocalization occur in some languages in the lexicon (e.g.
Hebrew, Russian), whereas in other in syntax (e.g. French, Italian), from which the
particular cluster of properties in these languages follows. Specifically, I will show
that the externalization by Ppred manifests the lexicon/syntax variation, namely it is
another instance of the same parameter; in Hebrew externalization of the theta-role
takes place in the lexicon, in English the same happens in syntax. This will
immediately explain why in English, but not in Hebrew, externalization involves Op
(null operator)-movement. Furthermore, it will provide a promising direction to derive
the fact, previously unaccounted for, that the constructions are nominal in Hebrew but
verbal in English.
5.2 The properties of the nominal
As noted in Engelhardt (1998), the nominal introduced by le- in the object gap
contexts is an event denoting nominal (e-N), rather than a result nominal, following
the classification in Grimshaw (1990).3 This is shown in (3a). (3b) illustrates one of
3
These nominals are labeled complex event nominals (CEN), and are distinguished from simple event
nominals (e.g. a trip) in Grimshaw (1990). The former are argued to have an argument structure and
an e argument (Ev in Grimshaw 1990), whereas the latter are a subgroup of result nominals (e.g. a
book), with no argument structure. Note, however, that even from the semantic perspective, referring to
nominals such as a trip as event nominals is misleading. These nominals do not denote an event, but
rather an object with durative meaning, and therefore are simple result nominals. From the syntactic
perspective, there is no justification for this subdivision, as only CENs have an argument structure.
175
.
the properties of e-Ns, their resistance to pluralize (additional properties of e-Ns
relevant for the present discussion will be mentioned as we proceed).4
(3)
a. mezeg ha-avir
kaše
le-xizuy/*taxazit
the-weather [is] difficult to-predicting/[a weather] report
b. ha-te’orya
kala li-vdika/*vdikot
the-theory [is] easy to-examination/examinations
e-Ns are argued in Grimshaw (1990) to be derived from the corresponding verbs
by the suppression of the external argument (Agent), and to have a particular array of
properties. In what follows I will show that although the nominal introduced by le- in
object gap constructions is an e-N, it fails to exhibit some of the properties typical of
e-Ns.
5.2.1 Obligatory indefiniteness
Grimshaw (1990) observes that e-Ns in English occur either with a definite
article or with no article at all, namely they do not occur with the indefinite article a.
Hebrew, unlike English, does not have an indefinite article, only the definite one ha(‘the’). Nevertheless, the contrast between Hebrew e-Ns not included in the lenominal sequence of object gap constructions and those which are, is still very clear.
The former can occur rather freely either with the definite marker ha- (‘the’) or
without it (4), but e-Ns of object gap constructions occur obligatorily without it (5)
(Engelhardt 1998):
(4)
(ha)-harisa
šel batim yešanim/ha-batim ha-yešanim…
(the)-destruction of houses old/the-houses the-old
“(the) destruction of old houses/the old houses…”
(5)
ha-sefer kaše
li-kri’a/*la-kri’a
the-book difficult to-reading/to+the-reading
Therefore, in what follows, I simplify Grimshaw’s terminology, and refer only to the argument taking
nominals as e(vent)-nominals.
4
The examples are either adopted or adapted from Engelhardt 1998.
176
.
Based on previous work, definiteness in the Hebrew nominal system is a
syntactic feature [+definite] of an N checked against the functional head D (Siloni
1994, 1997, Borer 1999, among others). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that an
obligatory indefinite nominal (5) does not combine with the functional head D,
projecting an NP, rather than a DP.5
5.2.2 The function of e-N
In addition to their thematic arguments, e-Ns are assumed to have an external
e(vent) argument (Ev in Grimshaw 1990), on a par with R, the external argument of
simple nominals (Higginbotham 1985). Grimshaw (1990) observes that, unlike simple
nominals that function either as arguments or as predicates (6), e-Ns can function only
as arguments, never as predicates (7). This suggests that R and e are not identical. The
former can be either bound by the determiner DP-internally, or assigned to an
argument, but the latter (e) can only be bound by D (Grimshaw 1990, following
Higginbotham 1985).
(6)
a. The teacher has left.
b. Dan is a teacher.
(7)
a. The destruction of the city was beyond imagination.
b. *This was the/a destruction of the city.
Given this and the observation that the nominals of object gap constructions are
e-Ns, the question arises how come these nominals are predicative, rather than
argumental (see (2) in section 5.1).
There are two quite distinct approaches in the literature relevant for the issue at
hand: (i) A syntactic operation turns an argumental (nominal) projection into a
predicative one. (ii) There are two kinds of e-Ns; those which combine with D and
project arguments (DPs), and those which do not combine with D, and project
predicates (bare NPs). I review briefly each of these below.
5
See Danon (2002), where it is argued that any syntactically non-definite nominal in Hebrew, not
necessarily the obligatory indefinite ones, is an NP rather than a DP.
177
.
5.2.2.1 Op-movement: The syntactic operation which turns an argumental CP
into a predicative one (e.g. a relative CP, CP in object gap constructions) is the null
operator (Op)-movement familiar from Chomsky 1977, Chomsky 1986, Browning
1987, Rothstein 2001, among others. For instance, in the relative clause (8a) and the
English TC (8b), the Op generated in object position moves to spec-CP and binds its
trace, creating an operator-variable chain rendering the CP predicative, a CP with an
open position:
(8)
a. The book [CP Opi that [IP Dan bought ti ]] is interesting
b. The book is easy [CP Opi [IP PRO to read ti ]]
Let us consider whether a similar syntactic operation is plausible for the lenominal sequence in object gap constructions in Hebrew.
The le-nominal sequence can be analyzed either as an NP (with le- affix), or as a
PP.6 If it is an NP, the Op base generated as the internal argument of the N, can move
only to spec-NP, as shown in (9):
(9)
NP
Op
N’
N
t
It is rather obvious that the Op-movement in (9) is completely illicit, as the
specifier of an NP is not an operator position, i.e. it is an A- rather than an A’position. An A-position is a position where a theta-role can be assigned (Chomsky
1981). An A’- position is a landing site of an operator and is disassociated from thetaassignment.7 By hypothesis, then, specifiers and complements of lexical projections
(among them NPs) are A-positions. Indeed, it has been argued by various authors
(Ritter 1988, Szabolcsi 1992, Siloni 1994, 1997 and references cited therein), that the
6
See 5.2.1, where based on the obligatory indefiniteness of the nominal, it is assumed that the nominal
is not a DP.
7
The distinction between the two positions was redefined in Chomsky (1993) in terms of Lrelatedness. The definition does not change the status of a specifier position of a lexical projection.
178
.
specifier of an NP is the position of the external, Agent argument of an e-nominal
such as ha-harisa šel ha-cava et ha-ir (‘the army’s destruction of the city’), as shown
in (10). Spec-NP, therefore, is clearly not appropriate to host an operator.8
(10)
NP
DP
the army’s
N’
N
DP
destruction
the city
If the discussed le-nominal sequence is a PP, then an additional position is
available, the specifier of the PP:
(11)
PP
Op
P’
P
NP
leN’
N
t
Even if the specifier of the PP headed by le- is an A’-position, (11) is
problematic, as the Op moves out of the nominal. A’-movement out of nominals in
Hebrew is not attested, as shown in (12):9
8
If the nominal was a DP, then in addition to spec-NP, there was a spec-DP position which could, in
principle, host an Op. Indeed, Op-movement into a specifier of a (modifier) DP is proposed in Siloni
(1994, 1997) for semi-relatives.
9
Note that in the analysis of Hebrew semi-relatives in Siloni (1994, 1997), Op moves into spec-DP, i.e.
the movement is within the nominal.
179
.
(12)
a. bart ti’er
et
ha-pi’anu’ax
šel ha-kod
Bart described Acc the-deciphering of the-code
b.*ma bart
ti’er
et
ha-pi’anua’x?
What Bart described Acc the-deciphering
c.*et ha-kod
bart ti’er
et
ha-pi’anu’ax
Acc the-code Bart described Acc the-deciphering
Compare:
(13)
a. bart nisa lefa’ane’ax
et ha-kod
Bart tried to+decipher Acc the-code
b. ma bart
nisa lefa’ane’ax?
What Bart tried to+decipher
c. et ha-kod,
bart nisa lefa’ane’ax
Acc the-code, Bart tried to+decipher
Given the above, I conclude that without some additional stipulations, Opmovement in the le-nominal sequence is unlikely to be the right operation to create a
predicative phrase, NP or PP.10
5.2.2.2 Engelhardt’s (1998) activity nominals: Engelhardt (1998) argues that the
nominal in object gap constructions (and some other generic contexts) is a ‘defective’
kind of argument taking nominal. This kind of nominal is referred to as activity rather
than event nominal (A-NOM, as opposed to E-NOM in Engelhardt 1998). The
defective nature of these nominals is hypothesized to derive from the absence of D.11
As already mentioned, e-Ns are not on a par with simple nominals. Both can be
arguments (projecting DPs), but only the latter can be across copula predicates (NPs)
((6b) vs. (7b)). Thus the occurrence of e-Ns without D cannot be treated as a
10
This conclusion is consistent with the fact that there is no iteration of the embedded constituent in
Hebrew object gap constructions:
(i)
11
a. *dan hexin
marak reyxani le-šixnu’a
šel yosi le-axila/le’exol
Dan prepared soup aromatic to-persuading of Yosi to-eating/to+eat
“Dan prepared an aromatic soup to convince Yosi to eat.”
b. *marak ko reyxani kal le-šixnu’a
šel yosi le-axila/le’exol
soup so aromatic easy to-persuading of Yosi to-eating/to+eat
“Such an aromatic soup is easy to convince Yosi to eat.”
It is worth noting that Engelhardt (1998) does not follow Grimshaw’s (1990) lexical approach to eNs, but rather adopts the syntactic view argued for in Hazout 1990, Borer 1999.
180
.
possibility that in principle exists for any nominal. In other words, even if the
assumption that object gap nominals lack D is on the right track, the absence of D has
to be motivated. In the following section (5.3) I will explain why the nominals of
object gap constructions do not combine with D.
5.2.3 The internal argument of e-N
Grimshaw (1990) shows that the internal theta-role(s) of an e-N is assigned to a
syntactic, phonetically realized argument. However, the internal argument of the
nominal introduced by le- in object gap constructions is never phonetically realized,
either as a clitic (14b) or as a full pronoun (14c). This is illustrated for the Hebrew
TC:
(14)
a. ha-seferi kal/kaše
li-kri’a
ei
the-book easy/difficult to-reading
“The book is easy/difficult to read.”
b. *ha-seferi kal/kaše
li-kri’at-oi
the-book easy/difficult to-reading-it
c. *ha-seferi kal/kaše
li-kri’a
šel-oi
the-book easy/difficult to-reading of-it
The question arises whether this argument exists in the argument structure of the
nominal. Based on the observation in Engelhardt (1998), the answer seems to be
positive.
Engelhardt observes that the occurrence of oblique arguments in e-Ns is
conditioned by the assignment of the Theme (15). The TC in (16) shows that the Goal
argument of the e-N introduced by le- can be realized. Thus, it is reasonable to
conclude that the Theme of the e-N introduced by le- in (16) is also assigned, and
therefore obviously present in the argument structure of the nominal.12
(15)
xaluka
*(šel ha-trufot)
la-xolim…
distribution (of the-medicine) to+the-patients...
12
What seems to be not a necessary assumption is that the Theme theta-role is assigned to the object
position of the nominal introduced by le- (see section 5.3).
181
.
(16)
matanot ka’ele
gifts
kašot
le-xaluka
le-yeladim
as-these difficult to-distributing to-children
“Such gifts are difficult to hand over to children.”
5.2.4 The external argument of e-N
The external argument of an e-N, as opposed to the external argument of a verb,
can be phonetically realized, but it does not have to. This is illustrated for Hebrew
Construct State (CS) and Free State (FS) e-Ns in (17a) and (17b), respectively:
(17)
a. harisat
ha-cava
et
ha-ir/ harisat
ha-ir
destruction the-army Acc the-city/destruction the-city
b. ha-harisa
šel ha-cava et ha-ir/ ha-harisa
šel ha-ir
the-destruction of the-army Acc the-city/ the-destruction of the-city
“the (army’s) destruction of the city”
In the le-NP sequence, the external argument is never phonetically realized,
either as a full DP or as a pronominal clitic (similarly to the internal one, see 5.2.3):
(18)
*ha-sefer
kal/kaše
le-kri’a-ti/ šel dan /šel-i
the-book easy/difficult to-reading-my/of Dan/of-I
Intended meaning: “The book is difficult [for Dan/me to read].”
Thus, the question that arose regarding the non-realized internal argument, arises
here as well: Does the external argument exist? Since the realization of the external
argument is optional, an additional question arises: Is the implicit Agent in subjectless
e-Ns realized syntactically as a null element (PRO) (cf. Chomsky 1986, Siloni 1994),
or this theta-role saturated in the lexicon (Williams 1985), along lines proposed by
Szabolcsi (1992, 1994). I will follow the latter, as it is consistent with the approach to
e-Ns developed in Grimshaw (1990).13
Grimshaw (1990) argues that the suppressed external argument in the argument
structure of an e-N licenses adjunct by-phrases or possessor phrases (referred to as Aadjuncts):
13
See Siloni (1997) for the advantages of the lexical approach in accounting for the properties of the
nominals.
182
.
(19)
a. the destruction of the city by John…
b. John’s destruction of the city…
The same obtains in Hebrew e-Ns, the suppressed external argument of an e-N
can license an al-yedey (‘by’)–phrase or a Genitive possessor phrase (20):
(20)
a. ha-nikuy
šel ha-šati’ax al-yedey dan nimšax ša’ot
the-cleaning of the-carpet by-Dan
lasted hours
“Cleaning the carpet by Dan lasted for hours.”
b. ha-nikuy
šel dan
et ha-šati’ax nimšax ša’ot
the-cleaning of Dan
Acc the-carpet lasted hours
“Dan’s cleaning the carpet lasted for hours.”
Note, however, that neither the by-phrase nor the Genitive possessor phrase is
licensed in object gap constructions: 14
(21) a. *ha-šati’ax
kaše
le-nikuy
al-yedey dan/šel dan
the-carpet [is] difficult to-cleaning by-Dan/of Dan
b. *dan hevi et ha-oto le-cvi’a al-yedey xamiša cabaim/ šel xamiša caba’im
Dan brought Acc the-car to-painting by five painters/of five painters
If these phrases are licensed by the suppressed Agent, the ungrammaticality of
(21) may suggest that there is no (suppressed) Agent in the nominals in (21).
Consider, however, (22), where an Instrument phrase related to the nominal
introduced by le- is grammatical:
(22)
ha-šati’ax haya kal le-nikuy
im
ha-šo’ev
ha-xadaš
the-carpet was easy to-cleaning with the-vacuum cleaner the-new
“The carpet was easy to clean with the new vacuum cleaner.”
14
In the Hebrew TC headed by a deverbal adjective nitan (lit. ‘[is] given’, meaning ‘possible’), but not
in the TC headed by a pure adjective such as kal (‘easy’), a generic nominal (team of workers) is rather
acceptable:
(i)
ha-šati’ax
nitan
le-nikuy
al-yedey *dan/?cevet ovdim meyuman
the-carpet [is] possible to-cleaning by-Dan
/team workers experienced
183
.
Following Reinhart (2000) and Reinhart and Siloni (2003), in order to be
realized syntactically, an Instrument requires the presence of either an explicit Agent
or an implicit argument interpretable as an Agent.15 As can be seen in (23), when the
external argument is indeed not part of the argument structure (e.g. unaccusative
verbs, Reinhart 2000), an Instrument cannot be added:
(23)
a. *The vase broke with the hammer.
break: Theme ([-c-m])
Compare b. Bart broke the vase with the hammer.
break: Cause ([+c]), Theme ([-c-m])
Given this, the grammaticality of (22) shows that the Agent is present in the
thematic grid of the e-N introduced by le-. The question remains as to why it does not
license the by-phrase. I will answer it in the next section (5.3).
It is worth noting here that this state of affairs is reminiscent of middle
constructions (Tali Siloni p.c.). A middle verb does not license a by-phrase (24a), but
an Instrument is grammatical (24b) (Marelj 2002):16
(24)
a. ha-se’ar šel saša
mistarek (le-amir)/*al-yedey amir be-koši17
the-hair of Sacha combs
b. ha-se’ar šel saša
to-Amir/by Amir
in-difficulty
lo mistarek be-masrek ze
the-hair of Sacha not combs
in-comb this
“Sacha’s hair does not comb with this comb.”
In sum, an e-N introduced by le- has an Agent, but its syntactic status is not
identical to the status of this argument in a “regular” e-N (i.e. one outside the object
gap context).
15
In addition to the Agent theta-role ([+c+m]), theta-roles Cause ([+c]) or Mental ([+m]), which are
unspecified for /m or /c, respectively, do not exclude a [+c+m] interpretation (see Reinhart 2000, and
chapter 3).
16
Further comparison between middles and object gap nominals is beyond the scope of the study.
17
In Hebrew middles the implicit Agent can be introduced by le- (‘for’/‘to’) (Goldshlach and
Hershman 2001).
184
.
5.2.5 Adverbial modification
Modification by a manner adverbial is a typical property of e-Ns in Hebrew
18
(25).
However, adverbial modification is ungrammatical in the Hebrew TC, and
rather awkward in the OPC (26): 19
(25)
nikuy ha-šati’ax be- yesodiyut haya me’ayef
Cleaning the-carpet in-thoroughness was tiring
“Cleaning the carpet thoroughly was tiring.”
(26)
a. *ha-šati’ax
kaše
le-nikuy
be- yesodiyut
the-carpet [is] difficult to-cleaning in-thoroughness
“The carpet is difficult to clean thoroughly.”
b. ??dan hevi
et
ha-šati’ax le-nikuy
be-yesodiyut
Dan brought Acc the-carpet to-cleaning in-thoroughness
“Dan brought the carpet to clean thoroughly.”
The following table summarizes the properties of the e-N introduced by le- in
object gap constructions, as opposed to the properties of a regular e-N:
(27)
le + e-N
Function
18
predicate
e-N
argument
Ext arg
? (not realized)
+
Int arg
+ (not realized)
+
Definiteness
-
+
Manner AdvP
-
+
As observed in Siloni (1994), manner adverbials in Hebrew are mostly PPs.
See Engelhardt (1998) for different judgments of adverbial modification and by-phrases in the
Hebrew TC. Note, however, that the illustration of the discussed phenomena in Engelhardt (1998)
makes use of the Hebrew TC headed by the tough deverbal adjective nitan (‘possible’), rather than by
the pure adjectives easy/tough.
19
185
.
5.3 The proposal
Recall that it is typical of e-Ns to project arguments (DPs). However, e-Ns
introduced by le- in object gap constructions are predicative NPs. I will take this to
suggest that these nominals have been lexically altered prior to syntactic insertion in
such a way as to preclude their combination with D. More precisely, it will be argued
that le- is the ultimate source for the ‘peculiar’ properties manifested by these
nominals, among them the absence of D.
Based on the discussion of the P-morpheme le- in chapter 4, le- is a P-head in
the Directional construction where it denotes a relation (PR) (section 4.3), but it is a
nominal lexical affix in the Dative construction where it is a Case-related element
(PC) (section 4.2). As already mentioned, in object gap constructions le- is neither PR
nor PC, as its complement is predicative. Note also that if it was a relation denoting
predicate (PR), and given that it is highly ambiguous, one would expect it to be
replaceable by semantically related prepositions such as bišvil (‘for’) or el (‘to’). This
however, is completely impossible:
(28)
a. ha-sefer
kal *bišvil/*el/li-kri’a
the book [is] easy for/to-reading
Intended meaning: “The book is easy to read.”
b. bart hevi
et ha-otoi *bišvil/*el/li-vdika ei
Bart brought Acc the-car
for/to-examination
Intended meaning: “Bart brought the car to examine.”
Consider also the following, which supports the conclusion that the occurrence
of le- in object gap constructions is not Case-related. le- introducing the nominal in
object gap contexts is obligatory (29a), but unlike the small Case-checking Ps in PPverb constructions (chapter 3), the occurrence of le- is not motivated by the properties
of the tough adjective. Tough As in Hebrew can combine with nominals forming a
CS, without a preposition (29b) (Siloni 2002):
(29)
a. ha-seferi
kal *(le)-havana ei
the book [is] easy to-understanding
186
.
b. ha-yeled kal havana
the-boy easy understanding
“The boy understands easily.”
Importantly, only when le- occurs (29a), the nominal (havana, ‘understanding’)
has an object gap, namely its internal theta-role is not realized NP-internally and is
coindexed with the subject of the construction. In (29b) the subject (ha-yeled, ‘the
boy’) is construed as the external argument of havana (‘understanding’).
5.3.1 Externalization
I propose that le- introducing the e-nominal in object gap constructions is a
prepositional lexical affix (like the Dative le-). As it is not a Case-related
prepositional element, it is not associated with uninterpretable φ-features. Rather, leexternalizes lexically the internal theta-role (Theme) of the nominal, giving rise to a
nominal which, in some sense, is similar to prepositions such as under or about, or
adjectives such as nice or tired, namely a nominal with an external argument slot. It
should be emphasized that externalization of the internal argument precludes any
possibility of the nominal to form an argument. That is, unlike adjectives such as nice
or locative Ps, which can form SC arguments (4.4), the nominal created by
externalization cannot. It is in this sense that I call this function of le- Ppred; le- creates
one-place property denoting predicates.
Since le- externalizes the Theme argument of the nominal, it combines with
event denoting nominals (e-N), i.e. nominals which have an argument structure.20
Note that if the internal role of the nominal is externalized, it is not realized
phonetically NP-internally (5.2.3). The question arises as to how this theta-role (i.e.
the external slot of the nominal) is discharged. The answer to this question is
postponed until section 5.5, where the interpretation of the TC and OPC is discussed.
An external argument slot should not be confused with an external theta-role in
the theta-grid of an e-N. For one, the external theta-role of an e-N can be saturated in
20
Although, in principle, nothing prevents le- to attach to a simple N with no theta-grid, this is not
attested, as it would be a vacuous operation. Recall that I follow Grimshaw (1990), where only event
denoting nominals can have syntactic arguments, i.e. theta-grids. Thus nouns such as picture, story,
letter, gift, etc. which are known to occur with complements, but denote results rather than events, are
assumed not to have a theta-grid. The complements of these nouns are proposed to be associated with
positions in the lexico-conceptual stucture (lcs) of the corresponding nouns, rather than with positions
in the theta-grid (Grimshaw 1990).
187
.
the lexicon (see 5.2.4), but the external argument slot is either assigned to a syntactic
argument, or is identified with the external argument of a syntactic argument
(Rothstein 2001). To keep the two apart, I will use the same notation as in chapter 4
marking the external and internal argument slots Ext and Int, and the theta-roles as
ΘAgent/Theme.
The upshot of the lexical operation that underlies the le-nominal sequence in
Hebrew object gap constructions is schematisized in (30) (I ignore for now the
suppressed Agent of the nominal, see the discussion below). In order to distinguish
between an e-N and the nominal created in (30), I will label the latter leN and its
projection leNP.
(30)
Lexical externalization in Hebrew (preliminary)
[P-affix]le
+ [N] e-N
Æ
e, ΘTheme
[N] leN
e, ExtTh
Viewed this way, le- in (30) is comparable to verbal prefixes in Russian, some
of which are homophonous with prepositions (e.g. na, ‘on’).21 Thus, one may wonder
in what sense le- in (30) is still a preposition, rather than a regular derivational affix.
Hebrew affixes that derive nouns from nominal stems are right-adjoined (e.g.
yald-ut, ‘child-hood’). But le- is to the left of the nominal (e.g. le-kri’a, ‘to-reading’),
as typical of Hebrew prepositions. Further, prepositions are licensed in the syntactic
structure either if they have φ-features (PC), or through an external slot (PR). The latter
is exercised by (almost) all prepositions, including the ones that can be associated
with φ-features such as in or on (see chapter 2, section 2.2). Thus, to have an external
slot (Ext), namely to project a property denoting phrase, is typical of Ps. If le- is a
prepositional element that does not have Ext, it is reasonable to assume that it would
force the nominal to have one (by externalization of the internal theta-role), as in (30).
In other words, ascribing externalization to a prepositional element is reasonable, as it
reflects the typical property of P, to have an Ext. I know of no derivational nominal
affix in Hebrew that does the same.
21
Verbal prefixes in Russian often induce aspectual distinctions (e.g. pisal, ‘was writing’, na-pisal,
‘has written’).
188
.
Before I discuss the lexical externalization in more details, let me provide
some evidence to support the claim that the result of the lexical operation in (30) is
indeed a noun ([N leN]), projecting an NP, rather than a (complex) preposition ([P lenominal]).
In (31) the le-nominal sequence is modified by an AP, indicating the presence
of a nominal phrase:
(31)
ha-sefer
kaše
li-kri’a
mehira
the-book [is] difficult to-reading-fem. quick-fem
“The book is difficult to read quickly.”
Since the operation in (30) is lexical, if the result of the combination was a
(complex) P, its syntactic projection would not include any nominal phrase, and
therefore the compatibility of the sequence with an adjectival modifier would be very
surprising.
Further, consider the modified conjunction in (32):
(32)
ha-šati’ax kal
le-nikuy
ve-*(le)-tikun
miyadi’im
the-carpet easy to-cleaning and-(to)-mending immediate-pl.
“The carpet is easy to clean and to mend immediately.”
Note first that the ability of one AP modifier to modify both conjuncts indicates
that le-nikuy (‘to-cleaning’) and le-tikun (‘to-repairing’) are NPs, rather than PPs (see
4.3.4). Second, the obligatoriness of le- on the second conjunct shows that le- in this
context is neither a P-head (as in PP-verb constructions, 3.3.2) nor a D-affix (as in the
Hebrew Dative construction, 4.2). If it was, coordination with one le- would not be
out of the question, especially since the nominals are indefinite (see 4.2.2). Finally,
the occurrence of le- on the second conjunct can be taken to suggest that e-N and leN
are not of the same kind, and therefore cannot be conjoined.
5.3.2 The function of le- (Ppred)
Externalization of a theta-role has been proposed in the literature before. It is
argued to be the consequence of the categorial change (from V to A), taking place in
189
.
adjectival passive formation (Levin and Rappaport 1986). Marelj (2002, 2004) argues
that the internal theta-role of the verb is externalized in languages that form middle
verbs in the lexicon (e.g. English, Dutch), rather than in syntax (e.g. French, Italian).
Let us examine what underlies externalization of the internal theta-role of the
e-N upon the addition of le-. In other words, what exactly the addition of le- does.
Based on Siloni (1997), Genitive Case in Hebrew is either inherent, assigned by
šel (‘of’) (FS), or structural (CS) (33a). It is checked by, or assigned to, the Agent or
the Theme (if the Agent is not realized). If the Agent is realized (Genitive), the noun
can also check Accusative of the Theme (33b):
(33) a. ha-harisa
šel ha-ir/
harisat
ha-ir
the-destruction of the-city/ destruction-CS the-city
b. ha-harisa
šel ha-cava et
ha-ir/
harisat
ha-cava et
ha-ir
the-destruction of the-army Acc the-city/destruction-CS the-army Acc the-city
Now, note that externalization (30) targets only to the Theme argument of the
nominal, a Goal argument, for instance, is never externalized:
(34)
a. matanot
kalot le-xaluka
le-yeladim
presents [are] easy to-distribution to-children
b. *yeladim kalim le-xaluka
šel matanot
children easy to-distribution of presents
Intended meaning: “Children are easy to give presents to.”
This is reminiscent of passive. In rough lines, Hebrew direct objects (e.g. a
Theme) can undergo passivization, but the oblique ones introduced by P cannot:
(35)
a. matanot
xulku
le-yeladim
presents [were] distributed to-children
b. *le-yeladim/yeladim
xulku
matanot
to-children/children [were] distributed presents
190
.
Passivization is taken to involve the removal of Accusative and suppression of
the external argument of the verb (cf. Jaeggli 1986). I will take the specific similarity
to passive highlighted above (34) to indicate that le- in (30) removes Genitive Case of
the nominal.22
This may seem as a strange state of affairs, as we are not familiar with
prepositions that remove Case, quite the opposite. Nevertheless, this, I claim, is what
le- functioning as Ppred does. As mentioned before, prepositions either have φ-features
enabling them to check Case, or they have an external slot and project property
denoting PPs (e.g. about John). le- realizing Ppred has neither; it cannot check Case, so
it removes the Genitive Case feature of the nominal. Consequently, the relevant
arguments of the nominal (Agent and Theme, see (33)) cannot be realized in their
theta-positions; the external one has to be saturated in the lexicon (see below), and the
internal one is externalized. As a result, the nominal has an external slot and denotes a
property. In other words, Ppred (le-) creates a constituent (leNP) that functions similarly
to that of a property denoting PP.
Let us clarify a bit further the status of the external argument (the Agent) of the
nominal. It is well known that this argument can be suppressed, namely not projected
syntactically. Non-projected arguments have to be saturated. Following Chierchia
(1995), there are two types of saturation: ordinary saturation (i.e. “simple” existential
closure) and ARB-saturation (SatARB, henceforth). Both bind the variable by
existential closure. However, unlike regular saturation, Arbitrarization (SatARB)
introduces a sortal restriction to humans that is both syntactically and semantically
projected in the form of a distinguished index.
It has been noted by Siloni (1997:91) that in Hebrew nominal contexts an Agent
can be implicit only when it is [+human] ((36a) vs. (36b)), which is typical of
Arbitrary (ARB) interpretation (see also Rizzi 1986, Cinque 1988, Szabolcsi 1992,
1994):
(36)
a. haka’at ha-yeled (al-yedey axi-v)
beating the-boy
(by
zi’aze’a otanu
brother-his) shocked us
“The beating of the boy (by his brother) shocked us.”
22
Since the ability to check Accusative is contingent in nominals upon the realization of the (Genitive)
Agent (33b), the removal of Genitive will automatically remove Accusative as well.
191
.
b. hakašat ha-yeled *(al-yedey ha-naxaš) zi’aze’a otanu
biting the-boy
(by
the-snake)
shocked us
“The biting of the boy (by the snake) shocked us.”
(Siloni 1997, (41))
The Agent of the leN is never realized, namely it is always implicit. I will assume
then, that it undergoes obligatorily SatARB. Put differently, it seems to be the case that
the removal of Genitive by le- designates the Agent, whose projection in a regular e-N
is optional, as ΘSatARB, namely, as a theta-role that has to undergo obligatory
Arbitrarization.23 The complete lexical operation that derives the leN is given in (37):
(37)
Lexical externalization in Hebrew (final)
[Ppred-affix]le
+ [N] e-NGenitive Case
Æ
e, ΘAgent, ΘTheme
[N] leN
e, ΘSatArb, ExtTh
It is important to note that externalization has no effect on the e variable of the
leN.
This is significant, as the existence of e will be argued in section 5.5 to be crucial
for the interpretation of the object gap constructions.24
Let us now summarize the direct and indirect consequences of (37).
The removal of Genitive by le- is directly responsible for the non-realization of
the Agent and Theme arguments of the leN NP-internally; the Agent is ΘSatArb and
therefore not projected, the Theme is externalized, Ext.
The ungrammaticality of the by-phrase and possessor phrase in the leNP (see
section 5.2.4) is an indirect consequence of (37). More specifically, it seems to be the
case that these phrases in nominals are not licensed because of ΘSatARB. I propose to
construe this as follows. The by-phrase and possessor phrase are licensed upon simple
saturation of the Agent (ΘSat). le-N cannot feed simple saturation as its Agent is
23
See Marelj (2002, forthcoming) for another instance of obligatory Arbitrarization (i.e. in the lexically
formed middle verbs in English or Dutch).
24
Grimshaw’s (1990) view that the e-argument is the external argument of an e-N, combined with the
assumption that an internal argument can be externalized only if an external one is absent (Williams
1994), is arguably problematic for the proposed externalization of the Theme argument. Note, however,
that the e argument of e-Ns is not a syntactic argument (i.e. it is not assigned to a syntactic position, but
bound by D DP-internally, see 5.2.2). Therefore, it is plausible that the externalization of the Theme
argument has no interaction with the e argument of the nominal.
192
.
already ΘSatARB (see (37)).25
Instrument adjuncts (licensed by Agent interpretation, Reinhart and Siloni 2004)
are grammatical (5.2.4), as ΘSatARB has the necessary Agent interpretation.
Another direct consequence of the lexical externalization in (37) is the absence
of D. As opposed to an e-N, the newly created nominal (leN) is clearly predicative (as
observed in section 5.2.2). It has an external argument slot (i.e. the externalized
Theme), on a par with As such as nice or smart. (In)definiteness is a property of
(nominal) arguments, not of predicates. Therefore, a leN cannot be specified for
definiteness (or indefiniteness, for that matter), it is neither definite nor indefinite (see
also Engelhardt 1998) (5.2.1). Consequently, its combination with the functional head
D is excluded, as it lacks the feature assumed to be checked against D.26
The absence of D is what arguably underlies the ungrammaticality of adverbial
modification in
leNPs
(see 5.2.5). It is reasonable to assume that adverbial
modification in verbal and nominal domains is, in principle, the same. Adverbial
modifiers are predicated of the e argument of the corresponding lexical head (i.e. V or
N) (Higginbotham 1985, Parsons 1990). The e argument is bound by the existential
operator associated with the functional head (T or D), above the lexical one. Focusing
on nominals, it is reasonable to suggest that adverbial modifiers are attached at the DP
(or D’) level, unlike the AP modifiers that are attached at the NP (or N’) level. Once
the DP layer is missing, there is no projection to which an adverbial phrase can attach.
Finally, since le- functioning as Ppred removes Genitive Case, the predicative
constituent it forms is necessarily nominal in Hebrew (38) (contrasting sharply with
English):
(38)
a. ha-kelev
kaše
*le’alef/le-iluf
the-dog [is] difficult to+tame/to-taming
“The dog is difficult to tame.”
25
The same line of reasoning will derive the fact that it is impossible to passivize the embedded
constituent in English object gap constructions (see 5.4.2.2).
26
D[+mod], argued in Siloni (1997) to head semi-relatives, cannot combine with a leNP either: Although
D[+mod] does not introduce [+definite] feature, its specifier is occupied by an Op (null operator) whose
trace has Case. Recall, however, that there is no Case in the leNP.
193
b. bart hevi
et ha-kelev ??le’alef/le-iluf27
.
Bart brought Acc the-dog to+tame/to-taming
“Bart brought the dog to tame.”
Thus, le- in (37) (Ppred) is clearly distinguished from the infinitival le-, i.e. le’alef
(‘to+tame’) can be interpreted in Hebrew only as an infinitival verb. Following
Stowell (1982), infinitive is zero tense, rather than absence of tense. Thus Hebrew
infinitive verbs on a par with the finite ones combine obligatorily with the functional
head T forming clausal projections (Hazout 1995). A clausal projection (CP) differs
from the leNP in two respects; it is not predicative, and it does not have an unbound e
variable (in the clausal projections this variable is bound by the tense operator in T).
Note that although a CP can be rendered predicative (by Op-movement, see 5.2.2),
this does not suffice to make it on a par with the leNP, as the former will still lack the
e variable. With this in mind, let us turn to object gap constructions in English.
5.4 Externalization in English
The most familiar analysis of object gap constructions in English (and Romance)
is the Op (null operator)-movement analysis (39). Under this analysis the complement
of the main predicate (tough A, matrix verb) is fully clausal (CP), and the gap in the
object position of the embedded constituent is the trace of the Op (Chomsky 1977,
1981, 1982, 1986a, 1993; Browning 1987; Tellier 1991, among others):28
(39)
a. The booki is easy [CP Opi [IP PROarb to read ti ]]
b. Dan brought the cari [CP Opi [PRO to repair ti]]
27
The infinitival is not completely impossible in the OPC, but it is much better with the P kedey (‘in
order’), and a resumptive pronoun:
(i)
28
dan hevi et ha-kelev kedey
le’alef oto
“Dan brought the dog in order to tame it.”
But see Cinque 1990, where it is argued that the Op in some constructions, among them the TC and
OPC, is base generated in the spec-CP and binds a pro.
194
.
The strongest empirical support for the Op-movement analysis (i.e. for the A’movement which underlies it) is based on the subjacency effect attested in these
constructions (40) (for brevity, I illustrate it only for the English TC). (40a) is
grammatical, as the A’-movement of the Op proceeds successive cyclically. However,
in (40b) two bounding nodes (NP, IP) are crossed resulting in ungrammaticality
(Chomsky 1973):29
(40)
a. This book is easy for us [CP Opi [IP PRO to arrange for the committee
[CP ti [IP PRO to read ti]]]]
b. *This book is easy for us [CP Opi [ IP PRO to insist on [NP/DP the
principle [CP ti that [IP the committee should read ti ]]]]]
Under the null hypothesis, the interpretation of object gap constructions is the
same across languages. As already mentioned, the interpretation of object gap
constructions (to be discussed in details in 5.5.) crucially involves the e variable of the
embedded constituent. Jumping ahead, in the TC, for instance, this e variable will be
shown to be modified by (identified with) the tough adjective, triggering complex AP
predicate formation.
As mentioned earlier, even if the CP is predicative (39), it cannot have an
unsaturated e variable; although the embedded verb has such a variable (Davidson
1967), it is bound by the tense operator associated with T (Higginbotham 1985). In
other words, a predicative CP is not a par with the embedded constituent in Hebrew
object gap constructions (leNP) (see 5.3.1), but it should be.
It is important to note here that although it is common to take the Op-movement
analysis as obligatory consisting of the Op-movement and of a clausal complement
(CP), this is not the only possibility. One can argue against the clausal projection of
the embedded constituent, while maintaining the movement part of the analysis
(provided that an appropriate A’-position is supplied). This is, in fact, the proposal I
will argue for here.
More specifically, I will argue that to in English object gap constructions is not
an infinitival tense marker, inserted (or moving) into the tense-related head T.30
29
In the Minimalist framework, a DP is a phase with no escape hatch, thus movement out of it is
impossible (Chomsky 2000, 2001).
30
For the movement of to into T (I) see Jones 1991.
195
.
Rather, it is a syntactic P-head that combines with a VP and externalizes the internal
theta-role of the verb (i.e. it functions as Ppred), forming in syntax a predicative PP.
Since P, as opposed to T, is not associated with a tense operator, the e variable of the
verb embedded in the PP is not existentially bound and is available for modification.
Thus, the PP is on a par with the leNP in Hebrew. Because the PP, unlike the leNP, is
formed in syntax, externalization of the internal theta-role of the verb will be shown
to result from OP-movement, as in (41):
(41)
[PP Opi [P’ to [VP read ti]]]
In what follows, I will first establish the non-clausal nature of the to-VP
sequence of object gap constructions. I will then discuss the details of externalization
in English.
5.4.1 ‘to’-VP is not clausal
As already mentioned, the clausal analysis of the to-VP sequence in object gap
constructions stems from the identification of to as the infinitival tense marker
realizing the functional syntactic head T, projecting a TP. The specifier of the TP, the
canonical subject position, is assumed to be always projected and realized (regulated
by the EPP in Chomsky 1981; predication in Chomsky 1995). Thus, the necessary
result of the clausal analysis is that the embedded constituent has a subject position. In
what follows I will argue that the morpheme to introducing the embedded constituent
of object gap constructions does not behave as an infinitival tense marker (T), and that
this constituent does not have a subject position.31
5.4.1.1 to is not T: The following examination will show that the properties of to
in Infinitival Relatives and expletive subject constructions are different from those in
object gap constructions. Under the view that to is invariably T, this is not expected.
31
Kayne (2003) assumes that to in English is a preposition in any context, including the infinitival one.
This assumption is viewed in Kayne (2003) as consistent with, or actually supported by, the fact that
infinitival to allows stranding under movement, as typical of English Ps:
(i)
They predicted that John would have to resign, and resign he’ll have to.
(Kayne 2003)
I believe that although (i) shows that to has prepositional properties, this does not mean that every
instance of to should be analyzed as P.
196
.
(i) Aspectual have:
Jones (1991) notes that the occurrence of the aspectual have is infelicitous in
object gap constructions (42b,c), as opposed to its felicitous occurrence in the fully
clausal Infinitival Relative (IR) (40a): 32,33
(42)
a. “Moby Dick” is a famous book [IR Opi [PRO to have read ti]] (before
you make it to college).
b. ?? “Moby Dick”i will be easy [to have read ei] (before you make it
to college).
c. *I bought it i [to have read ei ] (at least before graduating).
The aspectual (perfective) have is claimed by Williams (1984) to occur only if T
(an I-head in Williams’ terminology) is present, as it has to interact with it. The
ungrammaticality of (42b,c) thus supports the claim that the verbal constituent in
object gap constructions does not have a T-head.
(ii) Non-intentional be:
Williams (1984) notes that non-clausal constructions allow only intentional
predicates after the copula, whereas clausal constructions admit both. Furthermore,
Williams assumes a distinction between an auxiliary verb be (moving into T), and a
main verb be (not moving into T). Only the latter is associated with intentional
interpretation, and therefore is incompatible with non-intentional predicates (e.g.
proud of).34 Given this, consider the following contrast between the fully clausal IR
(43a), and the object gap constructions (43b,c):
(43)
32
a. My son John is a boy [CP to be proud of ]
Jones (1991) follows Williams (1984), where a distinction between fully clausal and non-clausal
constructions is made. Williams argues that the alleged non-clausal constructions exhibit an array of
properties (only some of which are illustrated in the text) that indicate that they do not have access to
the I(nflectional) system in the way that full clauses do. The comparison in Jones (1991) is between
Infinitival Relatives (IR), which are assumed to be clausal, and the verbal constituents in object gap
constructions which, by hypothesis, are not clausal.
33
In Jones (1991) to is viewed as part of the VP, rather than as a distinct P-head (see 5.4.2 for some
support for the latter).
34
As the two be can co-occur, it is possible to distinguish them using a potentially intentional predicate
such as obnoxious. Thus John is obnoxious is ambiguous between intentional and non-intentional
interpretation, whereas John is being obnoxious is only intentional, as the second be is a main verb be.
Being intentional, it forces the intentional interpretation.
197
.
b. ??My son John is easy [to be proud of ]
c. *I bought it [to be proud of ]
(Jones 1991)
Since proud of is a non-intentional predicate, be which precedes it is an auxiliary
moving into T. The marginality of (43b) and the ungrammaticality of (43c) are
accounted for on the assumption that there is no T in the embedded constituent of the
latter.
(iii) VP-ellipsis:
It is a familiar property of English that in many cases a VP can be elided leaving
the infinitival to behind (44). However, this is completely impossible in the English
TC (45). According to Williams (1984), the VP cannot be deleted if it is not a sister of
T (Aux in his terms):35
(44)
a. John is eager to please his teachers, but Mary is reluctant to.
b. John wanted to dance, but Mary didn’t want to.
(45)
*Your paper is easy to read, but your book is difficult to.
Note that the impossibility to elide the VP leaving to in the TC is arguably a
specific case of the more general impossibility to elide any part of the sequence [A to
VP] (46). This suggests that the relation between the tough adjective and the
following constituent (to-VP) is not the same as in (44a) (for further discussion see
5.5):
(46)
a. ??The goat is easy to milk, but the cow is tough.
b. *?The goat is easy to milk, and the dog is to feed.
c. The goat is easy to milk, but the cow is not.
35
See Jones (1991:92, 115) for a different view on what restricts VP deletion in English, and why VP
deletion is felicitous in the OPC:
(i) John bought “Bambi” [to read] and Mary bought it [to ]as well.
198
.
(iv) Adverbial placement:
Finally, notice that the placement possibilities of the so-called quantificational
adverbs (e.g. seldom, often, etc.) in the embedded constituent of object gap
constructions (47b,c) are not identical to those in the embedded infinitivals elsewhere
(47a):
(47)
a. Bart decided [CP to (often) watch avant-guard films (often)]
b. Avant-guard films are difficult [to (*often) watch (often)]
c. I bought “Metropolis” [to (*often) watch (often)]
On a reasonable assumption that these adverbs are interpreted in relation to an
event, i.e. they need an event variable to quantify over, they can occur either VPinternally, or immediately above the VP, if the VP occurs with the tense operator (T).
That the latter is ungrammatical in object gap constructions supports the claim that to
in these constructions is not T.
5.4.1.2 No subject position: It has been noted (Fiengo and Lasnik 1974, Jones
1991), that the verbal constituent of object gap constructions resists there-insertion
(48). In contrast, there-insertion is possible in the infinitival clause of the expletive
subject construction headed by a tough A, or in an IR, as shown in (49):
(48)
a. *Bart is tough for there to be pictures of all over.
b. *I chose Bart for there to be pictures of all over.
(49)
a. It is tough for there to be pictures of Bart all over.
b. Bart is a guy for there to be pictures of all over.
(Adapted from Jones 1991)
As standardly assumed, expletive there occurs in the subject position. If there is
no such position in the embedded constituent of object gap constructions, the
ungrammaticality of (48) follows. Note, that given the grammatical (49a), the
ungrammaticality of (48a) cannot be attributed to some property of the tough A.
199
.
Consider further the following contrasts between the expletive subject
construction and the TC (Chomsky 1977, 1981; Jones 1991, among others): If the
tough A is followed by the for-PP phrase, expletive subject construction is two-ways
ambiguous. The reason for the ambiguity is that the PP can be interpreted either as the
Experiencer argument of the tough A, the syntactic realization of which is optional
(50a), or as the subject of the embedded clause, introduced by the prepositional
complementizer for (50b):
(50) a. It is easy for the richi [CP [PROi to do the hard work]]
b. It is easy (for some people) [CP for [IP the rich to do the hard work]].
No such ambiguity is associated with the TC. The only interpretation it has is the
one corresponding to (50a) with the coindexed PRO, as shown in (51a):
(51)
a. Hard work is easy for the richi [PROi to do]36
b. *Hard work is easy (for some people) [for the rich to do]
On the clausal Op-movement analysis of the TC, the obligatory coreference in
(51a) will have to be interpreted as an instance of obligatory control of the PRO
subject by the Experiencer of the tough A. Notice that, even if obligatory control is at
play in the TC, it does not entail that the subject position of the embedded clause has
to be realized as PRO, as clear from (52):
(52)
a. Johni wanted PROi to leave.
b. John wanted for Bill to leave.
Finally, a lexical subject disjoint in reference from the Experiencer can be
introduced in the expletive subject construction (53a). This is completely impossible
in the TC (53b). The noted contrast is accounted for, given that (i) the second PP is
necessarily the subject of the embedded clause, as the tough A can realize only one
36
I use PRO here only to illustrate the relevant interpretation. By assumption, the embedded
constituent in the TC does not have PRO.
200
.
Experiencer, and (ii) there is no subject position in the embedded constituent in the
TC:
(53)
a. It is easy for the rich [for the poor to do the hard work].
b. *Hard work is easy for the rich [for the poor to do].
In light of the above, the embedded constituent of object gap constructions (toVP) is not on a par with an infinitival CP. The morpheme to is not T, and the
constituent lacks subject position. In what follows, I will show that to-VP in English
is on a par with the leNP in Hebrew.
5.4.2 The analysis
Since to is not T, classifying it as P is natural. After all, to is a preposition.37 It
occurs in the Directional and Dative constructions as a Case-related P (PC). The
function of P-to in object gap constructions is clearly not PC, as its complement is
verbal. Thus, like the Hebrew le-, the preposition to in object gap constructions lacks
uninterpretable φ-features, namely it is Ppred. As seen with regard to Hebrew Ppred
(le-), to realizing Ppred is expected to remove the Case of its complement. This is
strongly supported by the following observation (Cinque 1990).
In English object gap constructions, both direct and indirect objects can be
gapped (54). The latter, however, involves obligatory P-stranding (54b), which is
indicative of Case-related movement (55a) (compare with (55b,c)) (cf. Chomsky
1981):38
(54)
a. John is easy to please
b. John is easy to rely *(on).
(55)
a. John was relied *(on).
b On whom did you rely?
c. Whom did you rely on?
37
Williams (1984, fn. 2) views to as the only tenseless modal.
It is worth noting that by mentioning this, I do not mean to imply that object gap constructions
involve A-movement. I present the phenomenon at this stage only to support the claim that to removes
Accusative Case. I will discuss the consequences of the removal of Accusative in subsection 5.4.2.4.
38
201
.
There is, however, one respect in which to differs from le-.
5.4.2.1 The status and function of to: Unlike its Hebrew counterpart (le-), the
P-morpheme to in English is not a lexical affix. Even when its function is purely
formal (Case related), as in the Dative construction, it behaves as a syntactic P-head
(e.g. I gave presents to the boys and the girls, see section 4.2).
Note also that since English inflectional morphology (affixation) is clearly
right-headed (Di Sciullo and Williams 1986) (e.g. expect-ed), viewing the
combination to +V as a toV is implausible.
An alternative lexical possibility is even less reasonable. More specifically,
there are good reasons to reject the possibility that the combination of to with the verb
occurs in the lexicon and results in a complex preposition P[toV]. The grammaticality
of Instrument phrases (e.g. The manuscript is easy to read with a magnifying glass)
and manner adverbial phrases such as quickly (e.g. This carpet will be difficult to
clean quickly) is fully consistent with a VP projection, but not with a PP projection,
which does not include a VP.
In light of the above, to is a syntactic P-head functioning as Ppred in object gap
constructions. It takes a VP complement and removes Accusative Case of the verb,
inducing externalization of the internal argument of the verb. Thus, the difference
between English and Hebrew is that in the former externalization takes place in
syntax, whereas in the latter it occurs in the lexicon.
Viewed this way, externalization falls under the ‘Lex/Syn (Lexicon/Syntax)
parameter’ put forward in Siloni (2002). Siloni argues that certain operation such as
Reflexivization and Reciprocalization occur in some languages in the lexicon (e.g.
Hebrew, Russian), whereas in other in syntax (e.g. French Italian), from which the
particular cluster of properties in these languages follows. We have already seen that
in Hebrew, where externalization is a lexical operation, Ppred (le-) removes Genitive,
the Agent is obligatorily arbitrarized, and the Theme is externalized directly, namely
it is not mapped NP-internally. Let us now examine the properties and the
consequences of syntactic externalization.
5.4.2.2 Motivating Op-movement: As already mentioned, since to is Ppred,
lacking uninterpretable φ-features, it removes the Accusative Case of the verb.
202
.
Consequently, the arguments of the verb cannot be realized in their theta-positions. It
is reasonable to conclude that the external argument of the verb embedded in the PP is
suppressed, namely it is saturated by existential (possibly arbitrary) closure.39 This
might be construed as falling under Burzio’s (1986) generalization, and is fully
consistent with the observation that this argument is never phonetically realized in
object gap constructions (see 5.4.1.2).
Note that on the assumption that the external argument of the verb is suppressed
by to (Ppred), it is predicted that the embedded verb in object gap constructions cannot
be passive (54). More specifically, if both passivization and externalization involve
saturation of the external argument of the verb, they are mutually exclusive. In object
gap constructions externalization is obligatory (without it there will be no object gap),
therefore in these constructions the verb embedded in the PP cannot be passivized (for
brevity, I exemplify this only for the TC, see Jones 1991 for this effect in the OPC):
(56)
*Dan is easy to be pleased
Before I turn to the internal argument, a brief clarification is in place. Reinhart
and Siloni (2003) suggest that arity operations which result in non-canonical thetaassignment have a morphological marking (e.g. passive morphology; se/si). Noncanonical theta-assignment includes saturation. However, there is no characteristic
morphology (other than the uninflected verbal form) in object gap constructions.
What is characteristic of this context is the absence of T and the presence of P-to
instead. Thus, it can be argued that the role of characteristic morphology is played
here by characteristic syntactic configuration. More specifically, the external
argument of the verb can be and is saturated, since the VP is the complement of Ppred
(to), rather than of T.
39
In this respect I depart from Jones (1991), who assums that the external argument is not necessarily
suppressed, but rather becomes hierarchically equal to the internal one. Consequently, either the
external or the internal one can be externalized. The former gives rise to (obligatory) subject-gap PC
(SPC in Jones 1991), whereas the latter to the OPC and TC. Note, however, that since Jones (1991)
assumes the approach in Williams (1981), there is no need for a special mechanism (hierarchical
equation) in order to externalize the external theta-role of a VP. Furthermore, if suppression equates the
external and internal arguments, it is not clear why in object gap constructions only externalization of
the internal argument is witnessed.
203
.
Let us now turn to the internal argument of the verb embedded in the PP. Since
P-to removes Accusative, it is not surprising that the internal argument of the verb
cannot be phonetically realized in its theta-position (57):
(57)
a. The book is easy to read (*it).
b. Dan brought the car to repair (*it).
The question arises as to whether because of the removal of Accusative the
internal argument of the verb is externalized like in the Hebrew leN.
Note that if we tried to assume that the internal argument of the verb in the
English PP is externalized like in Hebrew, there would be no syntactic position
corresponding to this argument prior to externalization. There are, however, at least
two syntactic phenomena attested in English object gap constructions, which indicate
that the syntactic position corresponding to the (phonetically unrealized) internal
argument is projected.
Resultative secondary predication is known as a typical object-oriented
phenomenon, sensitive to the existence of a syntactic object position (58) (cf.
Rothstein 2003 and references cited therein). As (59) shows, a resultative predicate
can be added in the TC, indicating that the object position is syntactically realized:40
(58)
a. Dani wiped the tablej cleanj/*tiredi
b. The tablej was wiped tj cleanj.
(59)
This housej will be easy to paint tj bluej
Further, consider (60):
a. This booki is easy [PP [Th]i to try [CP PRO to convince John [CP PRO to read[Thi] ]]]
b. Dan brought the cari [PP [Th]i to try [CP PRO to convince John [CP PRO to repair[Thi] ]]]
Although, by hypothesis, the whole embedded constituent in (60) is a PP, it is
undeniable that this PP includes two fully clausal constituents (CPs). Note that the
40
The impossibility to add a resultative secondary predicate is probably due to the role of the PP in the
OPC. See 5.5.2 where the PP in the OPC and resultative secondary predicates are argued to function on
a par.
204
.
phonetically unrealized internal argument originates in the most embedded CP in (60).
In order to maintain the claim that the internal argument in (60) is externalized like in
Hebrew, one has to adopt a rather radical and totally ad hoc assumption that this
argument is not projected, but rather “climbs” all the way up exiting two cycles (CP
phases)!41
The arguments presented above are sufficient to rule out (direct)
externalization in English. The mechanism readily available in the theory for longdistance dependencies is the Op-movement. Accordingly, the analysis of (60a) will
have the representation in (61):42
(61)
This booki is easy [PP Opi to try [CP ti [PRO to convince John [CP ti [PRO to read ti]]]]]
5.4.2.3 The specifier of the PP: One of the central issues bearing on the Opmovement is the appropriateness of spec-PP to host the Op. In other words, the
question is whether this position is an A’-position.
A-positions are positions associated with theta-assignment or L-relatedness
(Chomsky 1981, 1993). Thus specifiers (and complements) of the lexical heads can be
considered A-positions. In the approach to P developed in chapter 2, Ps are functional,
rather than lexical heads, and therefore not theta-assigners. Even if some relaxation is
conceivable regarding Ps functioning as PR (e.g. locative Ps), P-to heading the PP in
object gap constructions is clearly not PR, as it introduces a predicative rather than an
argumental constituent (i.e. VP). Thus in this respect, there is no reason to view its
specifier as an A-position.
41
See Siloni (2002) and Reinhart and Siloni (2003), where the cycle (i.e. CP) is argued to be the
maximal domain for retaining (not assigning) a theta-role.
42
The possibility to iterate the embedded verbal constituent in object gap constructions is subject to
cross-linguistic variation. For instance, it is attested also in Rumanian (Grosu and Horvath 1987) (i). In
French and Italian, however, clausal iteration of the embedded verbal constituent is not allowed
(modulo restructuring verbs) (Cinque 1990) (ii). It should be noted here, that in languages where
iteration is attested, it is limited. The embedded clauses cannot be finite. I leave both the crosslinguistic variation and the limitation on the iteration for future research.
(i)
Aceste alune
sînt greu [de încetat
[ de ronţăit]]
These hazelnuts are hard stop-SUPINE gnaw-SUPINE
(SUPINE is a non-finite verbal form, Grosu and Horvath 1987, fn. 2)
(ii)
*Ce livre ést facile [à essayer [CP (de/à) lire]]
this book is easy to try
to read
205
.
The specifier of a TP is another position that qualifies as A-position, due to it
being L-related (Chomsky 1993). However, to in object gap constructions has been
shown to be P (Ppred), rather than T. It is not associated with tense and does not have
any set of (uninterpretable) φ-features. Clearly then, its specifier is not L-related, and
therefore not an A-position.
In sum, the specifier position of the PP in object gap constructions is not an Aposition, as the P is neither lexical nor tense-related. Therefore it is an A’-position,
appropriate to host an Op.43
5.4.2.4 The consequences: It is a well-known property of an A’-chain that its tail
position is associated with both theta-role and Case:
(62)
a. The man [whomi/Opi you met ti ] is my uncle
b. Whomi did you meet ti ?
Recall, however, that to functioning as Ppred removes Accusative (5.4.2.1).44 I
repeat the relevant examples below:
(63)
a. John is easy to rely *(on).
b. John was relied *(on).
c. On whom did you rely?
d. Whom did you rely on?
According to the analysis developed so far, (63a) shows that Op-movement in
the PP of object gap constructions in English is applicable to indirect objects, if P is
43
Note that P-to in the discussed context is, in some sense, parallel to C, the latter too is neither lexical
nor (directly) tense-related. See Kayne 2003, where infinitival to is taken to be a subtype of a
complementizer.
44
Kayne (1984), following Hornstein and Weinberg (1981) argues that verbal and prepositional Case
in English is identical (it is labeled Objective in Haegeman (1991)). This arguably underlies the fact
that to functioning as Ppred can remove the Case of the verb or of the preposition in English, and to the
phenomenon of P-stranding. The incorporation of this property of English (i.e. the identity of verbal
and prepositional Case) in the analysis of PC developed in chapter 3 is left for future research.
206
.
stranded. As already mentioned, movement upon P-stranding is typical of Caserelated movement (compare with (63c)).45
Thus the Op-chain in the PP is clearly not identical to the familiar A’-chain (e.g.
wh-movement). Its tail is a Caseless argument position, but its head is an A’-position
(spec of PP, see 5.4.2.3).46
Recall that to is Ppred, namely it does not have any φ-features, by assumption,
and therefore it cannot check structural Case at all. Consequently, the Op-chain in the
PP of object gap constructions is ‘Caseless’. A ‘Caseless’ chain is not visible at LF for
theta-assignment (i.e. the Case-marking on the head of a chain makes thetaassignment possible at LF, Chomsky 1986, 1995).47 Consequently, the internal thetarole of the verb is not assigned to the Op-chain in the PP, but only passed on by it.
Since this role has not been assigned in the PP, it has to be externalized.
If P-to functioning as Ppred can remove only Accusative, it follows that its
complement is invariably verbal:
(64)
a. The book is easy to read
b. *The book is easy to reading
Since to does not remove the Genitive Case of the nominal (reading), and
assuming that the internal argument of the nominal is assigned to the Op, the Opchain in (64b) is not Caseless, namely visible at LF and assigned the internal thetarole of the nominal. Once the theta-role is assigned, it cannot be externalized.
That Accusative is indeed the only Case to removes is supported by the
following. A Dative verb like give can occur in English either in the Dative
construction (65a), or in the Double Object construction (DOC) (65b):
(65)
a. Dan gave many presents to the children.
b. Dan gave the children many presents.
45
Be reminded that this should not be taken to imply that object gap constructions involve Amovement, but rather that the Op-movement in these constructions is different from the regular whmovement. For additional differences see Cinque 1990, Lasnik and Stowell 1991.
46
Cinque (1990) argues that instead of Op-movement, object gap constructions (and some related
constructions such as the parasitic gap construction) employ Op-binding of pro. Since pro is a
phonetically null nominal category, it can replace only DPs, but not PPs. Consequently, the fact that
only DPs can be Op-bound has nothing to do with Case under Cinque’s proposal (but see ahead).
47
The term ‘Caseless’ should not be taken literally. I simply use this familiar term to point out that the
A’-chain is ill-formed Case-wise.
207
.
The DOC (65b) is of special interest here. Following the analysis of the DOC in
Appendix to chapter 4, the (structural) Case of the verb which can be affected by
Case-removing operations (e.g. passive) is Dative (66) (its Accusative is inherent):
(66)
a. The children were given many presents.
b. *Many presents were given the children.
Now, note that the DOC resists externalization of either the Theme or the Goal
arguments (67) (cf. Fiengo and Lasnik 1974):
(67)
a. *The children are easy to give many presents.
b. *Many presents are easy to give children.
On the assumption that Accusative of the verb in the DOC is inherent (Larson
1988), it cannot be removed, and the ungrammaticality of (67b) is expected. The
ungrammaticality of (67a), however, is puzzling. Note that it cannot be claimed that
(67a) is ungrammatical because externalization targets the Goal. Clearly, the Goal
argument of give can be externalized upon P-stranding (68) (recall that English Ps are
assumed to check Accusative). The ungrammaticality of (67a) is accounted for on the
assumption that the structural Case in the DOC is Dative, but to, unlike the passive
morphology, can remove only Accusative. If Dative in (67a) is not removed, the Opchain is Cased and assigned the Goal theta-role. An assigned theta-role cannot be
externalized.
(68)
The children are easy to give many presents to.
To summarize, to in English object gap constructions, like Hebrew le-, is Ppred,
namely it is not associated with φ-features. It removes Accusative and suppresses the
external argument of the verb. The internal theta-role of the verb is assigned to a
phonetically null element (Op). It is externalized, as the Op-chain in the PP is
Caseless.
208
.
5.5 The role of the leNP/PP in object gap constructions
As the TC and the OPC are quite different, I will discuss them separately. Let
me first note briefly some differences which indicate that the role played by the
embedded constituent (leNP in Hebrew, PP in English) is different in each
construction.
(i) The occurrence of the
leNP/PP
is obligatory in the TC, but completely
optional in the OPC (69):
(69)
a. ha-kelev kaše
*(le-iluf)
the-dog difficult (to-taming)
“The dog is difficult *(to tame).”
b. bart hevi
et
ha-kelev (le-iluf)
Bart brought Acc the-dog (to-taming)
“Bart brought the dog (to tame).”
(ii)
The DP coindexed with the external slot of the leNP/PP is theta-marked
by the verb in the OPC, whereas the identity of the theta-marker of the
corresponding DP in the TC is controversial (the issue will be discussed
at length).
(iii)
In the TC the external slot of the leNP/PP is coindexed with the subject of
the construction. In the OPC the external slot of the leNP/PP is coindexed
with the internal argument of the embedding verb, regardless of its
syntactic position.
5.5.1 The Tough Construction (TC)
Based on the analyses of the le-nominal and to-VP sequences (leNP and PP,
respectively), the Hebrew and English TCs have the following syntactic
representations:
209
.
(70)
a. ha-sefer
kal/kaše
[leNP li-kri’a ]
the-book easy/difficult
to-reading
b. The book is easy/difficult [PP Op to [VP read t ]]
One of the well-known controversies associated with this construction is the
thematic status of its subject position: Is it a thematic position or a non-thematic
one?48 In what follows I will address this issue focusing on the properties of the tough
A in general, and on its function in the TC.
5.5.1.1 The tough A: The non-thematic status of the subject position in the TC
is primarily motivated by the existence of the expletive subject construction (71a),
which is taken to indicate that the tough adjective does not have an external argument
(71b). However, by itself, this cannot be considered as conclusive evidence, as there
are predicates, Object Experiencer verbs and adjectives (e.g. worry, annoy), which
also occur in expletive subject construction (72a), but nevertheless, do have an
external argument (72b) (Pesetsky 1987, 1995, Reinhart 2001):
(71)
a. It is easy to clean this carpet.
b. *The carpet is easy.
(72)
a. It is annoying that Sacha is late.
b. Your cat is annoying.
Note that the ungrammaticality of (71b) may have a different explanation. For
instance, a sentence like His behavior is blue is infelicitous. However, we do not
automatically conclude that blue does not have an external argument, but rather that
blue is incompatible with an argument such as his behavior.
Ordinary APs are modifiers of (nominal) arguments and inherent predicates
(Rothstein 2001). As predicates, APs are assumed to have an open position that has to
48
The thematic status of the subject position was crucial in the previously assumed framework (GB,
Chomsky 1981), where lexical insertion, regulated by the Projection Principle and the Theta-Criterion,
was assumed to result in a syntactic level of representation referred to as the D-Structure. In the
Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1993, 1995) the mentioned controversy is less significant, as no such
level is assumed to exist. Nevertheless, the nature of this position is still an intriguing issue.
210
.
be closed (or satisfied) syntactically (i.e. not necessarily thematically) by a subject.49
If an A has an additional (internal) argument slot, it is closed internally (Rothstein
1991). When functioning as modifiers, the external slot of an AP is proposed to be
satisfied through identification with the external slot of the modified nominal,
accompanied by assignment of a certain semantic role (the role of an attribute) to the
modified argument (referred to as autonymous theta-marking in Higginbotham 1985).
As part of their lexical properties, adjectives determine whether the argument
they modify/are predicated of is a simple, individual denoting argument (e.g. It is a
blue table/The table is blue) or a more complex, event denoting argument (e.g. It is
easy/important to read this book/To read this book is easy/important).50
Given this, it is plausible to attribute the ungrammaticality of (71b) to the
incompatibility of the tough A with individual denoting nominals. The distribution of
the tough A illustrated in (73) supports this direction. Putting aside for a moment the
TC (73e), (73) shows that the tough A is predicated of event denoting arguments,
namely CPs (73a,b) and event denoting DPs (73c), but not individual denoting DPs
(73d):
(73)
a. (ze) kaše
[CP likro
et
ha-sefer]
non-TC
(it) difficult to+read Acc the-book
“It is difficult to read the book.”
b. [CP likro et ha-sefer] ze kaše51
non-TC
to+read Acc the-book it difficult
“To read the book is difficult.”
c. [DP kri’at ha-sefer]
reading the-book
kaša
non-TC
difficult
“Reading the book is difficult.”
d. *ha-dira
kaša
the-apartment [is] difficult
49
I use the term closed/satisfied, rather than saturated, in order to distinguish closure of an argument
slot of a predicate from semantic (existential or arbitrary) saturation of a suppressed argument.
50
Strictly speaking, the relation between the AP and the CP in It is easy/important to read this book is
not that of modification. For one, when an AP functions as a modifier it is part of the phrase projected
by the modifiee (i.e. a blue table is a nominal rather than an adjectival phrase). Whether the relation
between the adjective and the CP is a theta-relation, or another kind of semantic relation (cf. Grimshaw
1990) is not crucial for the present discussion. In what follows I will refer to it as internal predication.
51
The occurrence of the pronoun ze (‘it’) following the CP in (73b) is surprising. For a promising
analysis, see Hazout (1994).
211
.
e. ha-dira
kaša
le-icuv
TC
the-apartment difficult to-designing
“The apartment is difficult to design.”
Given (73), however, the question whether a tough A has an external argument
reemerges. The tough A is semantically predicated internally in (73a) but externally in
(73c). Note, that once the TC is taken into consideration, the picture becomes even
more complicated. In the TC (73e), the tough A seems to be predicated (externally) of
an individual, rather than of event.
In what follows, I will adopt the view familiar from Chomsky 1986, Browning
1987, Cinque 1990, among others, and assume that the semantic argument of the
tough As is internal, rather than external.52 Note that following Rothstein (2001),
tough-headed APs are nevertheless inherent predicates, namely they do have an open
external slot which has to be closed by predication. With this in mind, let us return to
the TC.
5.5.1.2 The subject position: Chomsky (1981) notes that as opposed to a nonthematic subject position, which can host idiom-chunks or expletive subjects (74), the
subject position of the TC resists them (75). That is, if the discussed position is, in
fact, a theta-position, the ungrammaticality of (75) is expected, as it involves
movement of an idiom chunk into a thematic position, which is excluded (but see
Boškovič 1994):53
(74)
a. Good care seems [ t to be taken t of the orphans]
b. There is believed [t to have been a crime committed t].
(75)
52
a. *Good care is hard [to take t of the orphans]
There are alternative views: The ability to predicate either externally or internally is argued in
Hazout (1994) to be the typical property of these As in Hebrew. Kim (1996) argues for a uniform
external predication, accounting for sentences like (73a) by extraposition of a sentential argument to a
sentence-final position (but see Rothstein 2001 for arguments against such view). Note that neither the
alternative views nor the familiar one can account in a straightforward way for the non-uniform
behavior of the tough A (i.e. the grammatical (73c) as opposed to the ungrammatical (73d), but the
grammatical (73e)).
53
The thematic status of the subject position led Chomsky (1981) to propose a reanalysis of the
adjective-complement as a complex adjective. This solution is abandoned in Chomsky (1986) in favor
of the Op-movement analysis.
212
.
b. *There is hard to believe [t to have been a crime committed t].
Further, Epstein (1989) notes that TCs do not show the same kind of scope
ambiguity as show constructions with non-thematic subjects, such as the raising
constructions. Consider (76), with the typical raising verb seem. It is ambiguous, as
the quantified nominal many people can either have scope over the entire clause (due
to its surface position) (i), or it can have scope over the embedded clause only (due to
its base generated position) (ii):
(76)
Many peoplei seem [ti to be having a good time].
(i) many peoplei [seem [xi have a good time]]
(There are many people who seem to have a good time)
(ii) [seem [many peoplei [xi have a good time]]
(It seems that there is a large group of people having a good time).
However, in the parallel TC, only the wide-scope reading is attested (77i):
(77)
Many people are easy to talk to.
(i) many peoplei [easy to talk to xi]
(Many people are such that it is easy to talk to them)
(ii) *easy [many peoplei [to talk to xi]
(It is easy to talk to a large group of people)
Comparable Hebrew examples are given in (78) and (79). Using a raising
predicate nir’im (‘seem’) in (78) results in ambiguity. However, once the predicate is
a tough one (79), only the wide-scope reading remains (79i):54
(78)
harbe yeladim nir’im ayefim
many children seem tired
(i) many childreni [seem [xi tired]]
(ii) seem [many childreni [xi tired]]
54
Thus I totally disagree with Engelhardt’s (1998) claim that (79) has also the narrow-scope reading.
213
.
(79)
harbe yeladim kalim le-iluf
many children easy to-taming
“Many children are easy to tame.”
(i) many childreni [easy [to tame xi]]
(ii) *easy [many childreni [to tame xi ]]
Given the above, the discrepancy raised by the TC is crystal clear: On the one
hand the tough A is assumed not to have an external semantic argument, but on the
other hand, the subject position in the TC shows the behavior of a thematic position.
In what follows I will propose how the noted discrepancy can be reconciled.
5.5.1.3 Complex predicate formation: It is intuitively clear that the subject in the
TC has the property denoted by the tough A and the leNP/PP, rather than the property
denoted by the tough A alone. In (80), for instance, it is not the case that the book has
the property of being easy, but rather, the property of the book is that ‘reading it is
easy’.55 More specifically, easy in (80) modifies primarily the reading, and only then
the whole sequence easy to read is predicated of the book. Consequently, some book
can be easy to read, but difficult to understand, to design, to make a movie of (81):
(80)
The book is easy to read.
(81)
The book is easy to read, but difficult to understand.
Viewed this way, I propose that the internal semantic argument of a tough A,
which in non-TC is assigned to event denoting arguments (CP/DP) (see 5.5.1.1), is
used in the TC for modification of the event denoted by the predicative constituent
(leNP/PP). Note that this is probably what makes the interpretation of the TC and
Middle construction (82) similar (compare with (80)):56
(82)
55
The book reads *(easily/with difficulty).
For an elaborate semantic analysis of the English TC, see Kim (1996).
See Marelj (2002, forthcoming) and references cited therein for the semantic and syntactic analyses
of Middle constructions.
56
214
.
Following Higginbotham (1985), modification is analyzed as identification of
the semantic argument of the modifier and that of the modifiee, closing the involved
arguments. For the TC this will mean that the (internal) semantic argument of the
tough A is identified with the semantic e argument of the leNP/PP. In this sense then,
the event denoted by the leNP/PP is interpreted as the attribute of the adjective, the
dimension along which the difficulty or the easiness is graded.
I propose further that as the result of the modification, the tough A and the
leNP/PP
form a complex tough AP predicate. Recall that the leNP/PP constituent has
an external argument slot; the externalized internal theta-role of the nominal in
Hebrew (Theme) or that of the verb in English. Upon complex predicate formation,
this slot is identified with the external slot of the tough A and is closed by assignment
to the subject of the construction.57
The tough A, in addition to its semantic argument, which is assigned to an event
denoting constituent, has the so-called Experiencer argument. As already mentioned,
in the TC the Experiencer and the saturated argument of the leNP/PP are necessarily
coreferential, as opposed to a non-TC, where a subject different from the Experiencer
can be introduced (83):
(83)
a. Hard work is easy for the rich (*for the poor) to do.
b. It is easy for the rich (for the poor) to do the hard work.
(Chomsky 1977)
On the assumption that the complex predicate formation triggers identification
of the Experiencer of the tough A with the saturated argument of the leNP/PP (ΘSat),
this is accounted for.58 The complex AP predicate analysis of the TC is illustrated in
(84):
57
The mechanism assumed to underlie complex predicate formation in the TC is theta-identification
(Neeleman 1994), rather than theta-combination (Ackema 1995).
58
For alternative accounts to this effect see Koster 1984, Kim 1996.
215
.
(84) The analysis of the TC
a. ha-seferExt [AP
assignment
[A’ kal ]
[leNP li-kri’a]]
Ext. slot Exp, Int.
e, ΘSatARB, ExtTh
modification
identification
identification
b. The bookExt is [AP
assignment
[A’ easy ]
[PP Opi to read ti]]
Ext. slot Exp, Int.
e,
ΘSat, Ext
modification
identification
identification
The immediate benefit of this proposal is that it reconciles the noted discrepancy
regarding the status of the subject position in the TC as a thematic position with the
assumption that tough As do not assign an external semantic role. Tough As indeed do
not have an external semantic role, and therefore occur in expletive subject
construction, where the external, non-semantic slot of the tough AP is closed by an
expletive subject, while the internal one is satisfied by an event denoting argument. In
the TC, due to the function of the tough A as a modifier of the predicative constituent
with an external argument slot (leNP/PP), the complex tough AP does have an external
semantic argument. Consequently the subject position in the TC is a thematic
position.
5.5.1.4 Further evidence: It is possible to negate or elide the whole A- leNP/PP
sequence (85a), (86a), but not the leNP/PP alone (85a), (86b). On the assumption that
the A-leNP/PP sequence is an inseparable (complex) predicate, headed by A, these
facts follow:
216
.
(85)
a. ma’axal nora ze (lo) kal (*lo) le-axila
food
awful this (not) easy (not) to-eating
This awful food is (not) easy *(not) to eat
Compare:
b. (lo) kal (lo) le’exol ma’axal nora ze
(not) easy (not) to+eat food
awful this
It is (not) easy (not) to eat this awful food.
(86)
a. ha-kelev kal
le-iluf,
aval ha-para lo
the-dog easy to-taming, but the-cow not
The dog is easy to tame, but the cow is not.
b. *ha-kelev kal le-iluf,
aval ha-para kaša/lo kala
the-dog easy to-taming, but the-cow difficult/not easy
The dog is easy to tame, but the cow is difficult/not easy.
Compare:
c. dan
muxan lehitxaten,
aval dina
lo (muxana)
Dan [is] ready to+get+married, but Dina [is] not (ready)
Recall also that in the English TC it is impossible to strand to that follows the
tough A (87a), whereas this is possible if the adjective is not tough (87b). The
ungrammaticality of (87a) is expected under the complex AP analysis:
(87)
a. *John is easy to please, but Mary is difficult to.
b. John is eager to dance, but Mary is reluctant to.
The proposed analysis for the TC gains independent support in Hebrew, as it
bears a striking resemblance to the analysis of Hebrew adjectival constructs in
inalienable constructions in Siloni (2002), exemplified in (88):
(88)
yalda
yefat
eynayim/se’ar nixnesa la-xeder
girl-fem.sg. beautiful-fem.sg. eyes/hair
entered to+the-room
“A girl with beautiful eyes/hair entered the room.”
217
.
Siloni (2002) argues that the adjectival construct yefat eynayim is a complex
adjectival predicate. The genitive nominal in this complex is licensed by modification,
as the adjective does not have any semantic internal role. Despite the fact that the
external argument of the adjective is used for modification of the nominal, the
complex is nevertheless predicative. This is due to the external possessor argument
(variable), which is argued to be present in inalienable nominals. Therefore, only
these form adjectival constructs.
Although the Hebrew TC and the adjectival construct are not identical, the
resemblance is undeniable. The nominal in both constructions is a predicative NP,
rather than a DP, and it has an external slot, the externalized Theme in the former and
possessor in the latter. The set of nominals that can form a complex AP predicate is
restricted. It consists of leNPs in the former, and of inalienable nominals in the latter.
In both constructions, the adjective agrees with the subject, rather than with the
nominal it modifies.
5.5.1.5 The syntax of the complex AP predicate: The complex predicate in the
TC is undoubtedly adjectival (AP). It admits degree phrases (89); it can be conjoined
with another AP (90); in Hebrew, when it is used as a modifier it shows definiteness,
number and gender agreement, typical of Hebrew adjectival modifiers (91a), (91b); it
cannot be introduced by the relative complementizer še- or ha- (91c):
(89)
ha-sefer me’od/dey kal
li-kri’a
the-book very/rather easy to-reading
“The book is very/rather easy to read.”
(90)
ha-šati’ax
yašan ve-kaše
The-carpet [is] old
le-nikuy
and-tough to-cleaning
“The carpet is old and tough to clean.”
(91)
a. mazon kaše le-ikul
/
ha-mazon ha-kaše
le-ikul
azal
food difficult to-digestion/the-food the-difficult to-digestion sold out
b. ha-bxinot
ha-kašot
li-vdika
ne’elmu
the-exams.fem.pl. the-difficult.fem. pl. to-correcting.sg. disappeared
218
.
c. basar adom hu mazon (*ha-/*še-) ta’im/kaše le-ikul
meat red he food
(the-/that-) tasty/difficult to-digestion
“Red meat is a tasty food/difficult food to digest.”
Compare:
d. basar adom hu mazon *(ha-/še-)
meat red
he food
mit’akel le’at
(the-/that-) [gets] digested slowly
“Red meat is food that is digested slowly.”
Given the above, the tough A is definitely the head of the complex predicate.
The question arises as to what is the syntactic position of the leNP/PP with respect to
the tough A. Recall that the leNP/PP is predicative and therefore is not assigned a
theta-role by the tough A, but rather is modified by it. Therefore it seems
unreasonable to assume that the leNP/PP is the complement of A.59 Syntactically,
modification is represented as adjunction. In the usual cases, the modifier is adjoined
to some projection of the modifiee. I suggest that in the TC it is the other way around:
The modifiee (leNP/PP) is adjoined to a projection of the tough modifier, as in (92):60
(92)
APExt
A’
A’
leNP/PP
(ei, Ext)
A
(ext. slot, Inti)
To summarize, in the TC the tough A and the leNP/PP form a complex AP
predicate. As the result, the externalized argument of the predicative constituent
59
This situation is unique to the TC. In non-TCs (i), the event denoting argument (CP) is arguably
licensed as the internal argument of the tough A:
(i)
ze
kal [CP likro et ha-sefer]
It [is] easy to read the book.
60
The mismatch between the semantic function and the syntactic representation might be one of the
reasons for the relatively late acquisition of this construction in English (around 6-8 years) (Debbie
Anderson p.c.).
219
.
(leNP/PP) becomes the external argument of the complex AP predicate and is assigned
to the subject of the TC.
Before I conclude, let me clarify a particular aspect of the interpretation of the
TC.
5.5.1.6 The interpretation of the saturated argument: Recall that I assume that
the external theta-role of the
leN
undergoes obligatory Arbitrarization (ΘSatARB),
namely a variable interpreted as [+human] (xARB) is introduced (Chierchia 1995).
This, however, should not be taken to underlie the generic, quasi-universal
interpretation associated with the TC (93):61
(93)
ha-sefer
kal li-kri’a
the-book easy to-reading
“The book is easy to read.”
Roughly: ∀x [the book is easy for x to read]
For one, the OPC is not interpreted on a par with the TC (94a). More
significantly, when the Agent of a “regular” Hebrew nominal is implicit, it is
interpreted as [+human] (Siloni 1997), indicating that it is xARB. However, it is
interpreted as existentially, rather than universally, bound (94b):
(94)
a. dan hevi
et
ha-oto le-tikun
Dan brought Acc the car to-repairing
Roughly: ∃xARB [Dan brought the car for xARB to repair]
b. harisat
ha-bayit
destruction the-house (CS)
“the destruction of the house”
Roughly: ∃xARB [xARB destroyed the house]
*∀xARB [xARB destroyed the house]
61
In the present discussion I abstract away from the universal/arbitrary/generic distinction (see
Chierchia 1995). I use the universal quantifier, even if the interpretation is clearly arbitrary/generic, just
to distinguish this interpretation from the existential one.
220
.
Thus, it seems to be the case that the (quasi) existential interpretation of xARB is
its default interpretation. (Quasi) universal (or generic) interpretation of xARB has to
be licensed. This is done in the TC by the implicit Experiencer of the tough A.
As already mentioned, independently of its occurrence in the TC, the
Experiencer of the tough A can be either syntactically realized (95a), or it can be
implicit (95b):
(95)
a. (ze) kal le-dan laharos
et ha-bayit
(it) easy to-Dan to+destroy Acc the-house
“It is easy for Dan to destroy the house.”
b. (ze) kal laharos
et ha-bayit
(it) easy to+destroy Acc the-house
“It is easy to destroy the house.”
Implicit arguments can be interpreted either universally or existentially,
depending on the lexical properties of the corresponding predicates (Roeper 1983,
1987, Roberts 1985, 1987, Williams 1987, Cinque 1988). The interpretation of
implicit Experiencers in general is consistent with the universal saturation, not with
the existential one, namely they are interpreted as arbitrary in reference, rather than
having a unique referent:
(96)
ha-xatul ha-ze me’acben
the-cat the-that annoying
“This cat is annoying.”
Roughly: ∀x [this cat is annoying for x]
The Experiencer of the tough As is no different in this respect. When implicit, it
is interpreted as arbitrary in reference (97):
(97)
ha-sefer kal li-kri’a
the-book easy to-reading
“The book is easy to read.”
Roughly: ∀x [the book is easy for x to read]
221
.
Recall that in the TC xARB is identified with the possibly implicit Experiencer
of the tough A. Consequently, xARB is interpreted as (quasi) universal in the TC.62
5.5.2 The Object Purpose Clause (OPC)
As already mentioned, the role of the leNP/PP in the OPC is different from its
role in the TC.63 Let me review first the properties of the leNP/PP in the discussed
construction, which are relevant for the issue at hand.
5.5.2.1 leNP/PP in the Object Purpose Clause (OPC): In contrast to its occurrence in
the TC, the occurrence of the leNP/PP in the OPC is completely optional. This is not
surprising as thematically, the sentence is complete without it:
(98)
dan hevi
et
ha-oto (le-tikun)
dan brough Acc the-car (to-repairing)
“Dan brought the car (to repair).”
Furthermore, in the OPC the externalized argument of the leNP/PP is objectoriented. More precisely, it corefers with the internal argument of the main verb,
regardless of its syntactic realization:
(99)
a. danj hevi
et ha-otoi
li-vdika [Exti/*j]
dan brough Acc the-car (to-examining)
Danj brought the cari to examine [Exti/*j]
62
Based on the observation in Engelhardt (1998), a generic context is another possible licenser of the
arbitrary interpretation of the implicit Agent of the nominal (xARB):
(i)
63
axilat dganim
tova li-vri’ut
eating cereal (CS) good to-health
“Eating cereal is good for health.”
Roughly: ∀x [ It is good for x’s health to eat cereal]
Faraci (1974) divides Purpose Clauses (PC) in English into Purpose, Rationale and Objective
clauses. Only clauses which contain a gap in object position are referred to as Purpose clauses. Note
that only these are the focus of the present section as only they occur with leNP in Hebrew. Further, the
group of verbs which occur in the OPC construction is not easy to define. The most typical are the
transitive (and arguably some unaccusative) verbs which denote a change of location (see Faraci 1974
for a more comprehensive definition of this group). In addition to the verbal PCs discussed here, there
are also adjectival PCs, which are beyond the scope of the study.
222
.
b. ha-otoi
huva ti
li-vdika [Exti]
the-car [was] brought to-examining
The cari was brought to examine[Exti]
Based on the above, the OPC is reminiscent of the resultative construction,
exemplified in (100) (Hebrew does not have this construction). The AP in (100a,b)
and the PP in (100c) are commonly analyzed as resultative secondary predicates.64
Like the leNP/PP in the OPC, resultative predicates are object-oriented (100) vs.
(101):65
(100)
a. Dan wiped the tablei [AP cleani]
b. Sara painted the housei [AP bluei]
c. John broke the vasei [PP into piecesi]
(101)
Danj wiped the table [AP tiredj ]
Cannot mean that: ‘Dan wiped the table until he was tired’
Both a resultative secondary predicate, and the predicative leNP/PP in the OPC
can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the corresponding sentences.
Note that (102a) entails (102b) and (103a) entails (103b), indicating that the omitted
phrases are secondary predicates (Rothstein 1995):
(102)
a. dan hevi
et ha-otoi li-vdika [Exti]
dan brough Acc the-car to-examination
“Dan brought the car to examine.”
64
I do not mention depictive secondary predicates, as they are not necessarily object-oriented (ia), and
therefore incomparable to the leNP/PP in the OPC:
(i)
a. Johni ate the cake nakedi
b. Mary drank the teai hoti
65
Another typical property of these predicates, not relevant for the present discussion, is that they can
be predicated of a non-thematic argument or of a ‘fake’ reflexive (Rothstein 2000, 2003):
(i)
(ii)
a. Dan sang the babyi asleepi.
b. *Dan sang the baby.
John ate himselfi sicki.
223
.
b. dan hevi
et ha-oto
dan brough Acc the-car
“Dan brought the car.”
(103)
a. Dan wiped the tablei [AP cleani]
b. Dan wiped the table.
Given the similarity of the leNP/PP in the OPC to the resultative secondary
predicate, I will assume that the
leNP/PP
in the OPC is a secondary predicate.
Following Rothstein (1983, 2001) this means that it is predicated of a thematic
argument of the main clause predicate.
5.5.2.2 The syntax of secondary predicates: The syntactic issue concerning
secondary predicates revolves around the question whether a secondary predicate is a
daughter of a SC node (predicated of a PRO subject) (Chomsky 1981, Stowell 1983,
among others), as in (104a), or rather an adjunct, generated without a subject as a
daughter of some projection of the V, and predicated directly of the relevant argument
of the main predicate (Williams 1980, 1983, 1994, Rothstein 1983, 1995, 2001,
among others), as in (104b):
(104)
a. John [VP wiped the table] [PRO clean]
b. John [VP [V wiped] [DP the table] [AP clean]]
As pointed out by Williams, the structure in (104a), at least for object-oriented
secondary predicates, is problematic. PRO contained in the SC appears to be
governed, as the SC has to be contained inside the VP.66 Rothstein argues that SCs
must be licensed by theta-marking, which is impossible in (104a).
In what follows I will adopt the structure in (104b) for resultative and purpose
secondary predicates (leNP/PP). The syntactic representations of the Hebrew and
English OPC are given in (105):
66
Chomsky (1981) raises the possibility that while theta-marked SCs (complements of ECM verbs) are
transparent for government, non-theta-marked SCs (i.e. object-oriented depictives and resultatives) are
opaque for government, thus allowing PRO.
224
.
(105)
a. dan [VP [V hevi]
[DP et ha-oto]i
[leNP le-tikun][Exti]]
b. Dan [VP [V brought] [DP the car]i [PP Opi to repair ti ][Exti]]
(105) correctly implies that the DP the car is the argument of the matrix verb,
and that the leNP/PP is a VP-internal adjunct of some kind. Faraci (1974) presents five
arguments to support the claim that the embedded constituent in the OPC (‘purpose
clause’ in his terminology) is indeed a VP-internal adjunct, rather than a clausal one. I
will mention here two of his arguments.
Following Chomsky (1965), only phrases outside the VP could be preposed to
the beginning of the sentence. Given this, the ungrammaticality of (106b) indicates
that to practice on in (106a) is inside the VP:
(106)
a. John bought the piano to practice on
b. *To practice on, John bought the piano
(Faraci 1974, (7b), (8b))
The embedded constituent in the OPC can be part of a VP in focus position in
pseudo-cleft sentences:
(107)
a. Marc bought Fido to play with
b. What Marc did was to buy Fido to play with
(Faraci 1974, (31a,b))
In sum, the leNP/PP in the OPC is a VP-internal adjunct. Its external slot (Ext) is
discharged by assignment to the internal argument of the matrix verb (e.g. the car in
(105)).67 As already mentioned in 5.5.1.6, the saturated argument of the leNP/PP
(xARB) is usually interpreted in the OPC as (quasi) existential (by default) (Dan
brought the car to repair). Note, however, that following the discussion in 5.5.1.6, the
saturated argument of the leNP/PP (xARB) in the OPC should, in principle, be able to
be interpreted as arbitrary (universally-bound), if the appropriate licensing is
provided. This is indeed the case, as shown in (108):
67
Williams (1983) argues that the correct way to capture the independence of a secondary predicate
from the primary one is to revise the Theta-Criterion in such a way that it states that no argument can
be theta-marked more than once by the same head.
225
.
(108)
lo moxrim be-tel-aviv sfarim li-kri’a
ba-matos
not sell-pl. in-Tel-Aviv books to-reading in+the-plane
Intended meaning: “Books to read on the plane are not sold in Tel Aviv.”
Roughly: ∀xARB [books for x to read on the plane are not sold in Tel aviv]
5.5.2.3 The semantics of object-oriented secondary predicates: Rothstein (2000,
2003) provides a uniform semantic account for secondary predication. The central
claim of this account is that the interpretation of a sentence including a secondary
predicate involves asserting that there was a complex event constructed out of the
event introduced by the matrix predicate and that of a secondary predicate. The
semantic operator which creates this complex event is the PART-OF relation. There
are two constraints on forming such complex event (predicate): (i) The event denoted
by the matrix predicate must be temporally contained in the event introduced by the
secondary predicate. (ii) The two must share a participant.
In a sentence containing a resultative secondary predicate (109), the PART-OF
relation is argued to relate the culmination of the matrix event (cul(e)) and the event
of the secondary predicate, rather than relating the event arguments of the two events
(as in sentences containing depictive secondary predicates). In other words, (109) says
that ‘the event of wiping the table culminated in the event of the table being clean’.
The semantic formula for resultative secondary predication is given in (110):
(109)
John wiped the table [AP clean]
(110)
λe. ∃e1∃e2 [e= ↑(e1Ue2) ∧ PART-OF (cul(e1),(e2)]
Using the Dowty style templates, Rothstein (2000) shows that the thematic
argument of cul(e1) is the Theme argument of the matrix V (realized as the direct
object). Combined with the constraint that the resultative predicate must share an
argument with the matrix one, this derives the object-orientedness of resultatives in
Rothstein (2000).
I propose that essentially the same semantic mechanism is employed in the
interpretation of the OPC containing the leNP/PP secondary predicates (111):
226
.
(111)
dan [VP hevi et ha-oto] [leNP le-tikun]
Dan [VP brought the car] [PP to repair]
(111) says that ‘The purpose of the event of bringing the car is that the car be
repaired’. Thus it seems reasonable to suggest that (111) is interpreted as a complex
event (by the PART-OF relation). More specifically, in (111) the PART-OF relation
relates the pur(e1) (purpose of e1) and the event argument of the secondary predicate
(leNP/PP) (112):
(112)
λe. ∃e1∃e2 [e= ↑(e1Ue2) ∧ PART-OF (pur(e1),(e2)]
I propose further that object-orientedness of the leNP/PP in the OPC can be
derived, based on the distinction observed in Faraci (1974:78) between intentional
PCs and functional PCs. Faraci notes that the notion ‘purpose’ is ambiguous. It can be
interpreted either as the intention of a participant (the participant’s purpose in doing
something, as in Dan arrived to read his new poems), or it can be interpreted as the
function of a participant (the purpose of a participant in some event, as in The chair is
there to sit on). The OPC has the function interpretation, i.e. the OPC is not about the
intention of a participant, but rather about the purpose of some action regarding a
participant. A thematic role associated with a participant which undergoes some
action is Theme (realized as the direct object). Given this and the constraint that a
secondary predicate has to share an argument with the matrix one, object-orientedness
of the leNP/PP in the OPC follows.
Thus, we can summarize the proposal in section 5.5 as follows. In the OPC the
predicative constituent (leNP/PP) is a secondary predicate, adjoined to some
projection of the matrix V. It is interpreted as part of a complex event, where its e
argument defines the purpose of the event denoted by the verb. The external slot of
the leNP/PP is discharged by the internal argument of the matrix verb.
In the TC the leNP/PP is an obligatory adjunct. Its e variable is modified by the
internal semantic argument of the tough A, resulting in a complex AP predicate with
an external argument slot. The latter is discharged by the subject of the TC.
227
.
Appendix A: The Degree Construction (DegC)
The Degree construction (DegC) with degree phrases like miday (‘too’) seems
similar to the TC. The embedded constituent (verbal in English, nominal in Hebrew)
is dependent on the occurrence of the degree phrase (1a), similarly to the embedded
constituent in the TC, which is dependent on the occurrence of the tough A (A.1b):68
(A.1)
a. ha-madafim
*(miday) kcarim le-harkava e
The shelves [are] too
b. ha-madafim
short
to install
*kcarim/kalim le-harkava e
The shelves [are] short/easy
DegC
TC
to install
However, the DegC and the TC are different in some respects, all of which are
probably connected to the relation between the adjective and the DP-subject in each
of the discussed constructions (i.e. John and angry in (A.1a) and John and easy in
(A.1b)).69
As already discussed at length, the tough A does not have an external argument
on its own, although it has, as any other A, an external slot, and therefore can act as a
predicate (of an expletive subject). I have argued that in the TC the embedded adjunct
(leNP in Hebrew, PP in English) forms a complex predicate with the tough A,
providing the tough A with the external argument. Thus it is only upon complex
predicate formation that the subject position in the TC is thematic.
68
The clauses which appear with degree phrases like miday (‘too’) are sometimes referred to as ‘result
clauses’. However, Browning (1987) notes that a more appropriate term would be ‘negative result
clauses’. The property predicated of John in (i) is that he is angry to such a degree that it is impossible
to talk to him:
(i)
John is too angry to talk to.
69
Some additional differences between the DegC and TC include the following: The constituent which
contains the gap (leNP in Hebrew, PP in English) is not obligatory (ia); it can be clausal (in Hebrew),
and does not necessarily contain a gap (ib):
(i)
a. ha-madafim kcarim miday (le-harkava)
the-shelves short
too (to-installation)
“The shelves are too short (to install).”
b. ha-ši’ur
meša’amem mixdey še-dan
iša’er
er
the-class [is] boring
too that-Dan will stay awake
“The class is too boring for Dan to stay awake.”
228
.
In contrast, the adjectives in the DegC are of the familiar kind (e.g. angry,
stupid, stubborn, etc.), i.e. they have an external argument slot, and therefore are
predicated of arguments only. In other words, there is no need for these adjectives to
participate in complex predicate formation in order to be predicated of a referential
subject. (This is what probably underlies the optionality of the embedded constituent
in the DegC, see fn. 69.)
Given the analysis of the TC developed in this chapter, and following Browning
(1987), I believe that the difference between the constructions can be captured
structurally.
Browning (1987) argues that the AP in the DegC is the complement of the Deghead, which is a predicate by virtue of facilitating the assignment of the external role
of the A (e.g. angry) to the subject.70 In addition to the AP complement, DegP
contains a secondary predicate, NP/PP with object gap (e.g. to install in (A.1a)),
which is adjoined to it. The structures of the TC and the DegC are shown in (A.2):
(A.2)
IP
TC
DP
DegC
I’
I
IP
DP
I’
(VP)
I
AP
DegP
A’
A’
tough-A
70
(VP)
DegP
PP/NP
Deg
PP/NP
AP
A
Degree words are analyzed as specifiers of AP in Jackendoff (1977). Since Abney (1987) they are
standardly treated as functional heads that take an AP complement.
229
.
Based on (A.2), the object gap PP/NP is an adjunct to A’ (or AP) in the TC, but
to the DegP in the DegC. In the former it has to contain a gap, as this gap (i.e. the
internal theta-role of the embedded predicate) is the external argument of the complex
AP to be assigned to the subject. In contrast, in DegC the semantic role assigned to
the subject exists independently of the adjoined PP/NP. Therefore it does not have to
contain a gap, but it may.
Appendix B: The P-morpheme le- in ECM/Raising Small Clauses
In addition to the object gap constructions discussed in this chapter, the Pmorpheme le- (‘to’) is also used to introduce nominal and adjectival SC predicates
selected by a small variety of ECM/Raising verbs (B.1):
(B.1)
dani hafax/nexšav
[ ti le-miflecet/yafe]71
Dan turned/considered to-monster/beautiful
“Dan turned into /is considered a monster/ beautiful.”
That the complement of le- in these constructions is indeed predicative is shown
in (B.2), using the pronominal reference diagnostic (see 5.1):
(B.2)
a. Dan hafax le-mifleceti.
*hii alva be-kulam.
Dan turned to-monster-fem. She offended in-everyone.
b. Dani hafax le-miflecet.
hui alav
be-kulam.
Dan turned to-monster-fem. He offended in-everyone.
“Dan turned into a monster. He offended everyone.”
71
nexšav (‘is considered’), the passive form of maxšiv (‘considered’), is clearly an ECM verb, as can be
seen from the examples in (i). The totally different interpretations indicate that the DP following the
verb in (ia) is not the argument of the verb (Rothstein 2001):
(i)
a. dan maxšiv [oto le-šakran]
Dan considers him to-liar
“Dan considers him a liar.”
b. dan maxšiv oto
Dan considers him
“Dan highly considers him.”
230
.
The ECM/Raising SCs differ substantially from the object gap constructions.
(i) The nominal following le-, although undeniably non-argumental (see (B.2)), can be
definite, if modified by a superlative or by a relative clause (cf. Rapoport 1987):
(B.3)
hu nexšav la-more haxi tov
ba-ir/
še-kol talmid xolem alav
he considered to+the-teacher most good in+the-town/that-every student dreams of-him
“He’s considered the best teacher in town/the teacher that every student dreams of.”
(ii) The occurrence of le- in these constructions is not obligatory (its occurrence is
highly preferred in colloquial Hebrew):
(B.4)
hu nexšav
(le)-yafe/balšan
he considered to-pretty/linguist
“He is considered pretty/a linguist.”
(iii) As can be seen from the previous and following examples, the nominal is a
simple, result nominal, rather than an e-N (event nominal). On the assumption that the
function of e-Ns is argumental (Grimshaw 1990), but the constituent following le- in
these constructions is predicative, the ungrammaticality of (B.5) follows:
(B.5)
*ze haya
le-harisat
ha-ir
it became to-destruction-CS the-city
Intended meaning: “It became the destruction of the city.”
(iv) The occurrence of the le-NP/AP sequence is either obligatory, as with the raising
verb haya (‘was’, meaning ‘became’) (B.6a), or its omission results in a totally
different interpretation, as with the ECM verb nexšav (‘[was] considered’) ((B.6b) vs.
(B.6c)) (see fn. 71):
(B.6)
a. hu haya *(le-more)
he was
(to-teacher)
“He became *(a teacher).”
231
.
b. hu nexšav
le-šakran
he considered to-liar
“He is/was considered a liar.”
c. hu
he
nexšav
considered
“He is highly considered.”
Based on the properties listed above, le- in ECM/Raising SCs cannot be
analyzed as le- introducing the nominals (leNP) in object gap constructions. First,
since NPs and APs are predicative phrases, by definition (B.7), the addition of le- to
them cannot be assumed to have the same effect as it has when added to an e-N (in
object gap constructions).
(B.7)
dan
more/yafe
Dan [is a] teacher/beautiful
Second, since the complement of le- can be definite (B.3), it is unreasonable to
even contemplate that the le-nominal sequence is lexically formed.
In other words, it does not seem to be the case that the discussed le- realizes
Ppred. What is the function of le- in this context?
I propose that le- in ECM/Raising constructions is Directional. As discussed at
length in chapter 4, the Directional le- is licensed by a path-denoting predicate (e.g.
run to school vs. *find to school). Raising/ECM verbs that license the occurrence of
le- in their SC complement, denote transition from one state to another. Consequently,
they can be argued to be path-denoting, although in an abstract way.72
Thus consider the contrast in (B.8). Both nehefax (‘turned into’) in (B.8a) and
nimca ([is/was] ‘found’) in (B.8b) take a SC complement. However, nimca ([is/was]
72
Both nexšav/maxšiv (‘[is] considered’/’consider’) and nehefax (‘turned into’) are supposedly pathdenoting verbs. However, the path meaning of the former is less dominant than of the latter. This
observation is supported by the following. The embedded (SC) predicate of nexšav can be introduced
either by le- (‘to’) or by the small P-morpheme ke- (‘as’), which is not Directional (ia). However,
nehefax (‘turned into’) licenses only le- in its SC (ib):
(i)
a. dan
nexšav
le-/ke-yafe
Dan [is] considered to-/as-beautiful
b. dan nehefax *ke-/le-yafe
Dan turned as-/to-beautiful
232
.
‘found’) does not license le- in its SC complement, whereas nehefax (‘turned’) does.
On the assumption that nimca ([is/was] ‘found’), unlike nehefax (‘turned’), does not
denote path, the noted contrast follows:
(B.8)
a. dan nehefax (le)-ašem
Dan turned
to-guilty
“Dan turned guilty.”
b. dan nimca (*le)-ašem
Dan found
to-guilty
Intended meaning: “Dan was found guilty.”
To summarize, in the familiar Directional context, where the path is spatial, the
internal argument of the Directional P such as le- (‘to’) is Location, realized as a DP
or a PP. The path denoted by the presently discussed verbs is not spatial, it is
transition from one state to another. Consequently, it does not end up in a Location,
but rather in a property, realized as an NP or an AP.
233
References
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Ackema, P. 1995. Syntax Below Zero. UiL-OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht
University.
Armon-Lotem, S. 2000. “Language Attrition: Why are Resumptive Pronouns so
Susceptible?”, BUCLD 24 Proceedings, ed. S. Catherine Howell et al.,
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 58-67.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, M. 1997. “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure”. Elements of Grammar.
Handbook of Generative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
Bartos, H. “Verbal Complexes and Morphosyntactic Merger”, to appear in Verb
Clusters in West Germanic and Hungarian – A Sprachbund?, K. É. Kiss & H. van
Riemsdijk (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bayer, J., M. Bader and M. Meng, 2001. “Morphological Underspecification Meets
Oblique Case: Syntactic and Processing Effects in German”, Lingua 111, 465514.
Beit-Arie, O. 1994. Anaphora within Locative Prepositional Phrases. M.A. thesis, Tel
Aviv University.
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi, 1988. “Psych-Verbs and Theta Theory”, Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 6.3, 291-352.
Belletti, A. and U. Shlonsky, 1995. “Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative
Study”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 489-526.
Ben-David, A. 1971. Lashon hamikra velashon chachamim. Dvir, Tel Aviv.
Berman, R. 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. University Publishing Projects, Tel
Aviv.
Berman, R. 1981. “On the Role of Prepositions in Modern Hebrew Syntax”, Hebrew
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, M. Nahir (ed.), University Press of America.
Berman, R. 1982. “On the Nature of ‘Oblique’ Objects in Bitransitive Constructions”,
Lingua 56, 101-125.
Bierwisch, M. 1988. “On the Grammar of Local Prepositions”, Syntax, Semantik und
Lexicon, M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch and I. Zimmermann (eds.), Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1-66.
Borer, H. 1999. “Deconstructing the Construct”, Beyond Principles and Parameters:
Essays in memory of Oswaldo Jaeggli, K. Johnson and I. Roberts (eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Borer, H. 2003. “The Grammar Machine”, The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Studies on the
syntax-lexicon interface, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert
(eds.), Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. and Y. Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic vs. Lexical Cliticization: The Case of
Hebrew Dative Clitics”, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, H. Borer (ed.), New
York: Academic Press, 175-217.
234
Boškovič, Ž. 1994. “D-Structure, Theta-Criterion and Movement into ThetaPositions”, Linguistic Analysis 24, 247-286.
Browning, M. A. 1987. Null Operator Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel.
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, G. 1984. “On the Role of Thematic Roles in Linguistic Theory”, Linguistics
22, 259-279.
Chierchia, G. 1989. “Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control”, Properties,
Types and Meaning II, G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 131-166.
Chierchia, G. 1995. “The Variability of Impersonal Subjects”, Quantification in
Natural Language, E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization”, Readings in English
Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Waltham, MA:
Ginn, 184-221.
Chomsky, N. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations”, A Festschrift for Morris Halle,
S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 232-286.
Chomsky, N. 1977. “On Wh-movement”, Formal Syntax, P. Cullicover, T. Wasow,
and A. Akmajian (eds.), Academic Press, NY, 71-132.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government
and Binding. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger,
NY.
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, The View from
Building 20, K. Hale, and S. J. Keyser (eds.), Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, The Minimalist
Program. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 167-218.
Chomsky, N. 1995. “Bare Phrase Structure”, Government and Binding Theory and the
Minimalist Program, Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 383-439.
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”, Step-by-step, R. Martin,
D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”, Ken Hale: A life in language, M.
Kenstowicz (ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”, ms., MIT.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik, 1993. “Principles and Parameters Theory”, An
International Handbook of Contemporary Research, J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow,
W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 506-569.
Cinque, G. 1988. “On si Constructions and the Theory of arb”, Linguistic Inquiry 19,
521-581.
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Danon, G. 1996. The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.
235
Danon, G. 2002. Case and Formal Definitness: The Licensing of Definite Noun
Phrases in Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Davidson, D. 1967. “The Logical Form of Action Sentences”, The Logic of Decision
and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 81-95.
Déchaine, R.-M. 1993. Predicates across Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Den Dikken, M. 1995. Particles. On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and
Causative Constructions. Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, A. M., and E. Williams, 1986. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge
Mass., MIT Press.
Dimitriadis, A. 1999. “On Clitics, Prepositions and Case Licensing in Standard and
Macedonian Greek”, Studies in Greek Syntax, A. Alexiadou et. al. (eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Doron, E. 1983. Verbless Predicates in Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin.
Doron, E. 2003. “Agency and Voice: The Semantics of the Semitic Templates”,
Natural Language Semantics, 11, 1-67.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Dowty, D. 1989. “On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’”,
Properties Types and Meaning, Volume II: Semantic Issues, G. Chierchia, B. H.
Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Dowty, D. 1991. “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection”, Language 67, 547619.
Emonds, J. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Engelhardt, M. 1998. The Syntax of Nominalized Properties. Ph.D. dissertation, The
Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Epstein, S. D. 1989. “Quantification in Null Operator Constructions”, Linguistic
Inquiry 20, 535-571.
Erteschik-Shir, N. and T. Rapoport, in preparation. The Atoms of Meaning:
Interpreting Verb Projections. Ben Gurion University.
Erteschik-Shir, N. and T. Rapoport, “Bare Aspect: A Theory of Syntactic Projection”,
to appear in The Syntax of Tense, J. Gueron and J. Lecarme (eds.), Cambridge
Mass., MIT Press.
Everaert, M. 2002. “The Case of the Theta System”, Theoretical Linguistics 28.3,
325-339.
Faraci, R. A. 1974. Aspects of the Grammar of Infinitives and for-phrases. Ph. D.
Dissertation, MIT.
Fiengo, R. and H. Lasnik, 1974. “Complement Object Deletion”, Linguistic Inquiry 4,
535-571.
Fillmore, C. 1968. “The Case for Case”, Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach,
and R. T. Harms (eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Franks, S. and G. R. Greenberg, 1988. “Agreement, Tense and the Case of Subjects in
Russian”, CLS 24, Part 2.
Friederici, A. 1982. “Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Aphasic Deficits: The
Availability of Prepositions”, Brain and Language 15, 249-258.
Fries, N. 1991. “Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases: a Contrastive Analysis”,
Approaches to Prepositions, G. Rauh (ed.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
236
Froud, K. 2001. “Prepositions and the Lexical/Functional Divide: Aphasic evidence”,
Lingua 111, 1-28.
Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its application. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, N. and M. Speas, 1986. “Specifiers and Projections”, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 8, 128-172.
Giorgi, A. 1991. “Prepositions, Binding and Theta-marking”, Long-Distance
Anaphora, J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Goldshlach, N. and E. Hershman, 2001. “Middle be’ivrit pe’aley emca haderech”,
ms., Tel Aviv University.
Greenberg, Y. 1994. Hebrew Nominal Sentences and the Nature of the StageIndividual Level Distinction. M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan Univrsity.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge Mass., MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. 1991. “Extended Projections”, ms., Brandeis University, NY.
Grodzinsky, Y. 1988. “Syntactic Representations in Agrammatic Aphasia: The Case
of Prepositions”, Language and Speech 31, Part 2, 115-134.
Grosu, A. 1994. Three Studies in Locality and Case. London, Routledge.
Grosu, A. and J. Horvath, 1987. “On Non-Finiteness in Extraction Constructions”,
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 181-196.
Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Gulligan, G. 1988. “Arbitrary Agreement”, CLS 24 Part 2.
Haegeman, L. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwell.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser, 1992. “The Syntactic Character of Thematic Structure”,
Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, M. Roca (ed.), Berlin: Foris.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser, 1994. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression
of Syntactic Relations”, The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), Cambridge Mass., MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser, 1996. “On the Double Object Construction”, ms. MIT.
Hale, K. and P. Platero, 1986. “Parts of Speech”, Features and Projections, P.
Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar, Foris
Publications.
Hazout, I. 1990. Verbal Nouns: Theta-theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hazout, I. 1994. “The Hebrew Pronoun ze and the Syntax of Sentential Subjects”,
Lingua 93, 265-282.
Hazout, I. 1995. “Infinitives and Thematic Structure”, ms., Haifa University.
Hestvik, A. 1991. “Subjectless Binding Domains.” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 9, 455-497.
Higginbotham, J. 1985. “On Semantics”, Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547-593.
Hinrichs, E. W. 1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference
in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.
Hoekstra, T. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding
Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hoekstra, T. and R. Mulder, 1990. “Unergatives as Copular Verbs; Locational and
Existential Predication”, The Linguistic Review 7, 1-79.
Hornstein, N. and A. Weinberg, 1981. “Case Theory and Preposition Stranding”,
Linguistic Inquiry 12.1, 54-91.
237
Horvath, J. “Pied-Piping”, to appear in SYNCOM (The Syntax Companion), M.
Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Blackwell, Oxford.
Horvath, J. and T. Siloni, 2003. “Against the Little-v Hypothesis”, Proceedings of
IATL 19. 2003. To appear in Rivista di Grammatica Generativa.
Jackendoff, R. 1973. “The Base Rules for Prepositional Phrases”, A Festschrift for
Morris Halle, S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X’-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass., MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Jaeggli, O. 1986. “Passive”, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587-622.
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. The University of Chicago Press
edition, 1992.
Jones, C. 1991. Purpose Clauses: Syntax, Thematics and Semantics of English
Purpose Constructions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass., MIT
Press.
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Kayne, R. 2001. “Prepositions as Probes”, to appear in a volume edited by A. Belletti,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Kayne, R. 2002. “On Some Prepositions that Look DP-internal: English of and French
de”, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1, 71-115.
Kayne, R. 2003. “Antisymmetry and Japanese”, English Linguistics 20, 1-40.
Kim, B. 1996. “Predication in Tough-Constructions”, WCCFL 14, 271-285, Camacho
J. et al. (eds.).
Klima, E. S. 1965. Studies in Diachronic Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University.
Koopman, H. 2000. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. Leading Linguist Series,
Routledge.
Koster, J. 1984. “On Binding and Control”, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417-459.
Kratzer, A. 1988. “Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates”, Genericity in Natural
language, M. Krifka (ed.), SNS-Bericht 88-42, University of Tűbingen, 247-284.
Kratzer, A. 1994. “The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice”, ms., University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb”, Phrase Structure
and the Lexicon. J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Kurzon, D. 2003. “’Preposition’ as Functor: The Case of long in Bislama”,
Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context, S. Feigenbaum
and D. Kurzon (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Landau, I. 1994. Dative Shift and Extended VP-Shell. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv
University.
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival
Constructions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Landau, I. 2002. “The Locative Syntax of Experiencers”, ms., Ben Gurion University.
Larson, R. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335391.
238
Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Blackwell Publishers.
Lasnik, H. and R. Fiengo, 1974. “Complement Object Deletion”, Linguistic Inquiry 5,
535-571.
Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell, 1991. “Weakest Crossover”, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687720.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport, 1986. “The Formation of Adjectival Passives”,
Linguistic Inquiry 4, 623-661.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav, 1995. Unaccusativity At the Syntax-Lexical
Semantics Interface, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav, 2002. “What Alternates in the Dative
Alternation?”, paper presented at 18th Annual Conference of The Israel
Association for Theoretical Linguistics.
Longobardi, G. 1994. “Reference and proper Names”, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609665.
Maienborn, C. 2001. “On the Position and Interpretation of Locative Modifiers”,
Natural Language Semantics 9, 191-240.
Maling, J. 2001. “Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological
Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles”, Lingua 111, 419-464.
Marácz, L. 1989. Asymmetries in Hungarian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Groningen.
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass., MIT
Press.
Marantz, A. 1997. “No escape from Syntax: Don't try a morphological analysis in the
privacy of your own lexicon”, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201225.
Marantz, A. 2000. “Reconstructing the Lexical Domain with a Single Generative
Engine”, ms., MIT.
Marelj, M. 2002. “Middles in Dutch/English Type of Language”, ms., UiL-OTS,
University of Utrecht.
Marelj, M. 2002. “Rules that Govern the Cooccurrences of Theta-clusters”, ms., UiLOTS, University of Utrecht.
Marelj, M. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure across Languages, Ph.D.
dissertation, UiL-OTS, University of Utrecht, LOT Publications.
Milsark, G. L. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory
of Clause Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University
Press.
Muysken, P. and H. van Riemsdijk, 1986. “Projecting Features and Featuring
Projections”, Features and Projections, P. Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.),
Studies in Generative Grammar, Foris Publications.
Neeleman, A. 1994. Complex Predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, UiL-OTS, University of
Utrecht.
Neeleman, A. 1997. “PP-Complements”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15,
89-137.
Nissenbaum, H. F. 1985. Emotion and Focus, CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.
Oehrle, R.T. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
239
Ouhalla, J. & U. Shlonsky (eds.), 2002. Themes and Issues in the Syntax of Arabic
and Hebrew, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics.
Current Studies in Linguistics Series, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Perlmutter, D. 1978. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”,
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, 89-157.
Pesetsky, D. 1987. “Binding Problems with Experiencer Verbs”, Linguistic Inquiry
18, 126-140.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. Current Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.,
MIT Press.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP”,
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.
Postal, P. 1971. Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: The Minimalist
Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Rapoport, T. 1987. Copular, Nominal and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Rauh, G. (ed.). 1991. Approaches to Prepositions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Rauh, G. 1991. “Prepositional Forms in the Lexicon: Problems and suggestions”,
Approaches to Prepositions, Rauh, Gisa (ed.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Reinhart, T. 1996. “Syntactic Effects of Lexical Operations: Reflexives and
Unaccusatives”, UiL-OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Reinhart, T. 2000. “The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts”,
UiL-OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Reinhart, T 2001a. “A Synopsis of ‘The Theta System’”, ms., UiL-OTS, University of
Utrecht.
Reinhart, T. 2001b. “Experiencing Derivations”, SALT Lecture, New York.
Reinhart, T. 2002. “The Theta System: An Overview”, Theoretical Linguistics 28.3,
229-290.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland, 1993. “Reflexivity”, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland, 1995. “Pronouns, Anaphors and Case”, Studies in
Comparative Germanic Syntax, H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds.), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 241-268.
Reinhart, T. and T. Siloni, 2003. “Thematic Arity Operations and Parametric
Variations”, ms. UiL-OTS and Tel Aviv University.
Reinhart, T. and T. Siloni, 2004. “Against the Unaccusative Analysis of Reflexives”,
The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Studies on the syntax-lexicon interface, A. Alexiadou,
E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert (eds.), Oxford University Press.
Reuland, E. 1986. “A Feature System for the Set of Categorial Heads”, Features and
Projections, P. Muysken and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies in Generative
Grammar, Foris Publications.
Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding
Nature of Prepositional Phrases. The Peter de Ridder Press.
240
Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1990. “Functional Prepositions”, Unity in Diversity: Papers
presented to Simon C. Dick on his 50th birthday, H. Pinkster and I. Genee (eds.),
Dordrecht: Foris.
Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1998. “Categorial Feature Magnetism: The Endocentricity and
Distribution of Projections”, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 148.
Riemsdijk van, H. and R. Huybregts. 2001. “Location and Locality”, ms., Tilburg
University.
Ritter, E. 1988. “A head-movement Approach to Construct-State Noun Phrases”,
Linguistics 26, 909-929.
Ritter, E. 1991. “Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern
Hebrew”, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Syntax and
Semantics 25, S. Rothstein (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, 37-62.
Rizzi, L. 1986. “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro”, Linguistic Inquiry 17,
501-557.
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Roberts, G. I. 1985. Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Roberts, G. I. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Foris,
Dordrecht.
Roeper, T. 1983. “Implicit Arguments”, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Roeper, T. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation”,
Linguistic Inquiry 18:267-310.
Ross, R. J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. The Indiana University
Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.
Rothstein, S. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT
(Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1985).
Rothstein, S. 1995. “Small Clauses and Copular Constructions”, Syntax and
Semantics, A. Cardinaletti and T. Guasti (eds.), 27-48.
Rothstein, S. 2000. “Results, Themes and Telicity: Another Look at Resultative
Predication”, a talk presented at the Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Tel Aviv
University.
Rothstein, S. 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Rothstein, S. 2003. Structuring Events. A Study in the Semantics of Aspect.
Explorations in Semantics. Blackwell Publishing.
Rubinstein, E. 1968. Hamishpat hashemani. Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel Aviv.
Rubinstein, E. 1971. Haceruf hape’ali: iyunim betaxbir yamenu. Hakibbutz
Hameuchad, Tel Aviv.
Selkirk, E. 1995. “The Prosodic Structure of Function Words”, Papers in Optimality
Theory, J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 439-469.
Shen, Y. 1985. The Structure of Action in the Short Narrative Text. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel
Aviv University.
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. An Essay
in Comparative Semitic Syntax. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. New York:
Oxford University Press.
241
Siloni, T. 1994. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Geneva.
Siloni, T. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The Syntax of DPs. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Siloni, T. 2002. "Adjectival Complexes & Inalienable Constructions", Themes and
issues in the syntax of Arabic and Hebrew, J. Ouhalla & U. Shlonsky (eds.),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Siloni, T. 2002. “Construct States at the PF-Interface”, The Year Book of Language
Variations 1, P. Pica & J. Rooryck (eds.), 229-266.
Siloni, T. 2002. “Active Lexicon”, Theoretical Linguistics 28.3, 383-400.
Stowell, T. 1978. “What Was There Before There Was There?”, in Farkas et al.
Stowell, T. 1981.Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Stowell, T. 1982. “The Tense of Infinitives”, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561-570.
Stowell, T. 1983. “Subjects across Categories”, The Linguistic Review 2, 285-312.
Stowell, T. 1989. “Subjects, Specifiers and X’-Theory”, Alternative Conceptions of
Phrase Structure, M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds.), University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 232-262.
Stowell, T. 1991. “Determiners in NP and DP”, Views on Phrase Structure, D.
Bouchard and K. Leffel (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 37-56.
Szabolcsi, A. 1987. “Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase”, Approaches to
Hungarian 2: Theories and Analyses, I. Kenesey (ed.), Jate, Szeged, 167-189.
Szabolcsi, A. 1989. “Noun Phrases and Clauses: Is DP analogous to IP or CP?”, The
Structure of Noun Phrases, J. Payne (ed.), Mouton, The Hague.
Szabolcsi, A. 1992. “Subject Suppression or Lexical PRO? The Case of Derived
Nominals in Hungarian”, Lingua, 86, 149-176.
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. “The Noun Phrase”, Syntax and Semantics 27, F. Kiefer and E.
Kiss (eds.),Academic Press, San Diego, 179-274.
Tellier, C. 1991. Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Ten Have, E., R. Schippers, M. van Steenbergen, and I. Vlasveld, 2003. “Dutch [-c]
Verbs and the Dative/Oblique Case”, ms., UiL-OTS, University of Utrecht.
Terzi, A. 2001. “Locative Prepositions as DPs”, NELS 32.
Vendler, Z. 1967. “Verbs and Times”, Linguistics and Philosophy, Cornell University
Press, Itacha.
Vincent, N. 1999. “The Evolution of C-structure: Prepositions and PPs from IndoEuropean to Romance”, Linguistics 37.6, 1111-1153.
Ura, H. 1996. Multiple Feature Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function
Splitting. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford
University Press.
Williams, E. 1980. “Predication”, Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 208-238.
Williams, E. 1981. “Argument Structure and Morphology”, The Linguistic Review 1,
81-114.
Williams, E. 1983. “Against Small Clauses”, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 277-295.
Williams, E. 1984. “There Insertion”, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131-153.
Williams, E. 1985. “PRO and the Subject of NP”, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 3, 297-315.
242
Williams, E. 1987. “Implicit Arguments, the Binding Theory, and Control”, Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 151-180.
Williams, E. 1989. “The Anaphoric Nature of θ-roles”, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 425-56.
Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure. Cambridge Mass., MIT Press.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1984. “Orphan Prepositions in French and the Concept of ‘Null
Pronoun’”, Bloomington. IN: IULC.
Zwarts, J. 1995. “Lexical and Functional Direction”, Linguistics in the Netherlands
1995, M. den Dikken and K. Hengeveld (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 227-238.
Zwarts, J. 1997. “Lexical and Functional Properties of Prepositions”, Lexicalische und
grammatische Eigenschaften prapositionaler Elemente, D. Haumann and S.
Schierholz (eds.), Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen, 1-18.
Zwarts, J. 1997. “Complex Prepositions and P-stranding in Dutch”, Linguistics 35,
1091-1112.
Zwarts, J. 2000. “External Arguments”, Lexical Specification and Insertion, Peter
Coopmans, M. Everaert and J. Grimshaw (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 429-457.
Zwarts, J. and Y. Winter, 2000. “Vector Space Semantics: A Model-Theoretic
Analysis of Locative Prepositions”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information
9, 169-211.